Salehe s/o Kassim v. R., Crim. App. 226, 227,228-D-68, 29/7/68, Hamlyn J.

Salehe s/o Kassim v. R., Crim. App. 226, 227,228-D-68, 29/7/68, Hamlyn J.

The three accused were convicted of burglary and stealing. The magistrate held that “though accused No. 1 claimed that the clothes .. were his own in absence of proper identification on his side and his failure to quote at least cost of each as the complainant did, I find that they are not his… On the other side accused No. 2 and 3 claimed to have got the clothes from accused No. 1. Though this might be so, I am reluctant to accept this testimony which is uncorroborated as the law requires.”

            Held: The magistrate misdirected himself on two counts. (1) No corroboration is required b the law for testimony by co-accused which is part of the defence evidence. (2) The law does not require accused to positively prove their version of the matter; they need only “raise some doubt in the mind of the court as to whether the prosecution has proved its case to the full. Appeal allowed.