Andrea v. R. Crim. App. 301-A-70; 25/3/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

Andrea v. R. Crim. App. 301-A-70; 25/3/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

            The appellant was convicted of causing grievous harm to the complainant c/s 225 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that the appellant shot the complainant with an arrow at about 10 p. m. at night. After being shot, the complainant cried that appellant had shot him and he was also able to identify the appellant with the help of light of the torch shone by the appellant’s woman. The appellant did make a statement which amounted to a confession to a detective corporal.

                        Held: (1) “In this case the identification of the appellant was the sole basis for his conviction. It has often been held that where the evidence implicating the accused is entirely based on identification, such evidence

must be “absolutely watertight to justify conviction.” [See R. v. Sebwato 1960 E. A. 174; Emmanuel Tumbotele v. R. 1968 H. C. D. 144; Wilson Ollo v. R. 1968 H. C. D. 183.] (2) “The conviction of the appellant could not have bee recorded in the absence of his statement to the Police, which statement the trial court wrongly admitted, it being a confession made to a Police Officer. The evidence of identification by the complainant was far from water-tight.” (3) Appeal allowed. (4) Conviction quashed and sentence set aside.