Fanuel s/o Kiula v. R., Crim. App. 536-D-67, 20/9/67, Georges C. J.

Fanuel s/o Kiula v. R., Crim. App. 536-D-67, 20/9/67, Georges C. J.

Accused was convicted of stealing by servant. [P. C. ss. 271, 265.] His defence was that the money had been taken from him. The trial magistrate stated in his judgment, “If the court is to accept the evidence of the accused that he lost the money, and there was no negligence on the part of the accused towards the loss of the money, accused may not be held responsible for the loss.”

            Held: (1) It is not necessary to accept the evidence of the accused in order to find him not guilty. All that an accused need do is raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. (2) No matter how negligent accused may have been, if in fact he did lose it or if it appeared very probable that he did, he could not be held criminally responsible for the loss. Conviction quashed.