%20(18).png)
Accused was convicted of arson, which conviction was based entirely on an identification by complainant of accused as the arsonist. It was night time and complainant only saw the arsonist from the back as he was running away, but complainant said she recognized that person as accused because of the clothes he wore. Accused, under oath, denied setting the fire.
Held: “Where the evidence which implicates an accused is entirely that of identification, that evidence must be water-tight before a conviction could be founded thereon.” (Citing R. v. Eria Sebwato, 1960 E.A. 174). Conviction quashed.
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(18).png&description=Wilson s/o Ollo v. R., Crim. App. 79-M-68, 11/3/68, Mustafa J.){kind=link}
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.