Kibwana Salehe v. R., Crim. App. 255-D-68, 16/8/68, Georges C. J.
Accused were convicted of stealing by agent. [P.C. ss. 273(b), 265]. There was evidence that they were employees of a transporter and had stolen a consignment of cotton. One of the prosecution witnesses had given a statement to the police in which he said he had given the first accused a letter of authority to receive the consignment. In his evidence-in-chief at the trial, he denied delivering such a letter. The prosecution then obtained permission to cross-examine him, and he acknowledged delivering the letter. The trial court relied on his testimony in arriving at one of its findings
Held: (1) “Whenever a witness is proved to have made a statement on oath inconsistent with a statement previously made by him, the credibility of that witness is completely destroyed, unless he can give an acceptable explanation for the inconsistency.” The witness gave no such explanation, and neither his testimony or previous statement should have been relied upon. (2) The other evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Appeal dismissed.
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.