MWITA and 2 Others v. R. Crim. Apps. 131, 130 & 132-M-70, 13/11/70; El – Kindy Ag. J.

  

MWITA and 2 Others v. R. Crim. Apps. 131, 130 & 132-M-70, 13/11/70; El – Kindy Ag. J.

            The appellants were jointly charged with and convicted of stealing from the person of another contrary to sections 269(a) and 265 of the Penal Code. In his judgment the Magistrate rejected the accused’s defence as “untrue”. The evidence was entirely circumstantial.

                        Held: (1) (following SIMON MUSOKE v. R. (1959) E. A. 715) “Where the evidence is exclusively circumstantial, the court must, before deciding upon a conviction, find that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis that that of the guilt of the person charged.” (2) “The learned Magistrate misdirected himself on the burden of proof in so far as the defence was concerned. The appellant’s duty was not to prove that their defences were “true”. They are simply required to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Magistrate, and no more. Their defences need not be true at all. (3) Convictions quashed and sentences set aside.