Meshilieki s/o Modiri v. R., Crim. App. 268-A-67, 25/4/68, Platt J.

Meshilieki s/o Modiri v. R., Crim. App. 268-A-67, 25/4/68, Platt J.

Accused was convicted of cattle theft. The primary issue on appeal concerned identification of the cattle. The trial court rejected photographs of the cattle because the negatives were not produced and neither the photographer or any person present at the time the photographs ere taken was called as a witness. Accused argued that the cattle should have been exhibited or viewed by the court. However, there was evidence that complainant had identified the cattle and that they had been freshly branded by accused long after the normal age for brandling.

            Held: (1) The photographs were properly excluded from evidence for the reasons stated by the trial magistrate. (2) The trial magistrate correctly observed that as a general principle the property should be produced as an exhibit if available, but that this procedure is not essential if there is other sufficient evidence of identification. [Juma allibux v. R., 1967 High Court Digest, case No. 383 distinguished]. In the present case, the other evidence of identification was sufficient to support the conviction.