Facts
The appellant is alleged to have been a party in malicious damage of property of another person. He was prosecuted, acquitted by the trial court, convicted on appeal to the High Court and then he appealed to the Court of Appeal challenging the decision of the High Court. His conviction was supported by evidence of identification and other pieces of evidence adduced by witness who hailed from a village which harboured hostility against the appellants village. It was argued in favour of the appellant that the evidence given by the witness had so many contradictions that it was unsafe to ground conviction on such evidence. Further it was said that since all the witnesses hailed from a hostile village there was need to dispel fears of bias and on the evidence these fears were not dispelled.
Held: (i) Since the witnesses contradicted themselves on the question of identification of the appellant that evidence cannot remain unshaken.
(ii) since all the witnesses hailed from a village which was hostile to that of the appellant a high degree of consistency than the one displayed is essential to dispel fears of bias. Case Information
Appeal allowed
No comments:
Post a Comment