Mussa Salim Othman v. R., Crim. App. 195-Z-67, 6/9/67, Kimicha Ag. C. J.

Mussa Salim Othman v. R., Crim. App. 195-Z-67, 6/9/67, Kimicha Ag. C. J.

            The accused was convicted of stealing by public servant c/s 248 (1) (4) of the Penal Decree. The principal witness for the prosecution was one Mohamed Hilal, who had already been convicted of theft in connexion with the same bags of sugar involved in the present case. The accused argued at the trial that Hilal,s testimony had to be corroborated; the trial magistrate ruled that, as Hilal was not a co-accused in the case his testimony could be admitted without corroboration, and that his criminal involvement in the matter at issue went only to the credibility of his evidence not to its admissibility.

Held: The trial magistrate seemed to confuse corroboration and credibility. The credibility of any evidence is a question of fact, for the tried of fact to determine. Corroboration is a matter of law. Certain testimony, whatever the trial court may feel about its probative value, may not be considered by a court unless there is corroborating evidence to support it. The evidence of accomplices, as well as that of co-accused, falls into this category. As Hilal was an accomplice of the accused, and his testimony was uncorroborated, it should not have been admitted into evidence. Conviction quashed.