Salum s/o Mohamedi v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 22-D-67, 4/1/68, Saudi J.

Salum s/o Mohamedi v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 22-D-67, 4/1/68, Saudi J.

Accused was convicted of housebreaking and stealing. His alleged accomplice, who was acquitted, stated that the radio found in his house had been brought there by accused. He also said that accused was a notorious thief, and that no one but accused could have broken into complainant’s house to steal the radio. He called two witnesses in corroboration of his testimony. They said they had seen accused playing the radio on the verandah of the accomplice’s house. The discovery of the radio there was the only other evidence linking either the accused or the alleged accomplice with housebreaking.

            Held: (1) The testimony of an alleged accomplice requires corroboration, and cannot itself be relied upon to convict an accused. (2) Here, the corroboration was insufficient. Upon the evidence, “it could be said that the appellant was or had been seen using the radio when it was already in the house of (the accomplice). The real issue is who brought it into that house …. Without a satisfactory answer to this question, it is unsafe to let (the accomplice) go Scot free and convict the appellant.” Conviction quashed.