Huglin s/o Malianus v. R. Crim. App. 31-D-71; 27/8/71; Biron J.

Huglin s/o Malianus v. R. Crim. App. 31-D-71; 27/8/71; Biron J.

Appellant was convicted of burglary and stealing c/ss 294 (1) and 265 of the Penal code and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and 1 year respectively, the sentences to run concurrently. It was also ordered that he receive 24 strokes, corporal punishment under the Minimum Sentences act, 1963. The house of the complainant was broken into on 4 November, 1970 when the owner went out for a stroll with his mistress. On their return, they discovered the breaking in and the loss of a large number of articles including a camera and a thermos flask. The matter was reported to the Police. On 17 November, a Police Officer accompanied by the complainant’s mistress and another local resident found a camera and a thermos flask in the house of the appellant, after he had denied all knowledge of these stolen articles. A TANU card and photographs belonging to the complainant were also found in a gourd full of ashes. Other properties were found with the help of the appellant himself. The appellant defence was that he had been framed by the prosecution witnesses.

            Held: (1) “There is no merit in this appeal for ………. The conviction is overwhelmingly supported and justified by the evidence, and the sentence imposed is the minimum sentence. The appeal would appear to have been admitted to hearing only on account of the apparent absence of a search warrant, which would render the search of the appellant’s house illegal.” (2) “Even if there was no search warrant, and the search was illegal, that would not affect the issue in the slightest or render inadmissible the production of the property found in the appellant’s house as laid down in Kuruma bin Kanin v. The Queen (1955) A. C. 197 (P. C) where it is sufficient to quote from the headnote. ‘The test to be applied, both in civil and in criminal cases, in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how it was obtained.’” (3) Appeal dismissed in its entirety.