Salum s/o Salum v. R., Crim. App. 12-D-68, 14/2/68, Georges C. J.

 

Salum s/o Salum v. R., Crim. App. 12-D-68, 14/2/68, Georges C. J.

Accused was convicted of shop breaking and stealing on evidence which the High Court characterized as “somewhat thin.” Accused denied having been at the scene of the crime but did not say where he had been. The trial magistrate stated in his judgment that “as the accused was raising a defence of alibi, it is required of him to raise some evidence which should satisfy the court that his alibi is reasonably true.”

            Held: “The accused does not have to establish that his alibi is reasonably true. All he has to  is to create doubt as to the strength of the case for the prosecution. It follows, therefore, that where the evidence for the prosecution is itself thin, an alibi which is not in itself particularly strong may very well serve the purpose of raising doubt as to the guilty of the accused.” Conviction quashed.