Search court decisions

…Eight witnesses altogether gave evidence at the trial that they recognised the second appellant.…

…He cited the case of Cleophas Otieno Wamunga v Republic (Criminal Appeal No 20 of 1989)where this Court said: “ It is trite law that where the only evidence against a defendant is evidence of identification or recognition…

…The paucity of evidence on the mental element was, made up by what is clearly hearsay evidence.…

…Accordingly, the evidence narrated to the court about what the informant told the police was inadmissible as hearsay evidence and ought to have been rejected by the trial court. That evidence was not excluded.…

…by the evidence of Matundura and Malika.…

…The trial court had accepted the evidence of the complainant, his mother and his brother, and despite the discrepancies as to time and place, there was evidence to support that decision.…

…The main ground in this appeal is on the confession statement which was retracted and repudiated and the corroborative evidence to make it admissible in evidence.…

…The link in the evidence leading to the blood-stain is missing and to rely on the bloodstain as corroborative evidence which evidence was not shown to have proved the guilt of the appellant would be unsafe.…

…that evidence.…

…statements and evidence.…

…If those pieces of evidence were taken away, Mr Prinja said, the rest of the evidence did not take the case any further.…

…In response to this evidence, the appellant made an unsworn statement.…

…What we must consider however, is whether the absence of his evidence adversely affects the evidence of the other eyewitnesses as proof beyond reasonable doubt of the offence with which the appellant was charged.…

…With respect to the lack of ballistic evidence connecting the shot alleged to have been fired by the appellant which caused the death of the deceased, there is the uncontroverted medical evidence that the deceased died of…

…As such they could not betaken as evidence against the other, even to the limited extent permitted by section 32 of the Evidence Act (cap 80).…

…30 of the Indian Evidence Act (now section 32 of cap 80).…

…There is no other evidence, direct or circumstancial, to corroborate the evidence of the complainant.…

…evidence can be safely accepted as true and free from the possibility of error.…

…The appellant’s contention in this appeal is on the grounds that the two courts below erred in law in not treating Mr Barlow’s evidence as that of an accomplice; the evidence of Samson Onyango (PW 2) was not impartial as…

…of PW 1 has been strongly corroborated by the evidence of PW 3, PW 5 and PW 7”.…

…He said besides lack of evidence that it is the appellant who laced the tea in the thermos flask with poison, there was no evidence to corroborate that of the two minors.…

…read the record of appeal and re-evaluated the evidence on record.…

…The Evidence Act (section 124, cap 80).…

…of a child of tender years and had also overlooked significant items of evidence bearing on the reliability of her evidence the conviction could not stand.…

…The Evidence Act (section 124, cap 80).…

…of a child of tender years and had also overlooked significant items of evidence bearing on the reliability of her evidence the conviction could not stand.…

…There was a number of defects in the evidence in the trial. There was no evidence, for instance of robbery as defined in Section 296(1) of the Penal Code on count two.…

…that the evidence is reliable, then after paying attention to the warning, he may nevertheless convict.…

…All this was circumstantial evidence against the first appellant.…

…An offence like murder can be established by evidence tendered directly proving it or by evidence of facts from which a reasonable person can draw the inference that murder had been committed.…

…In his judgment, the trial magistrate recited the evidence adduced before him.…

…doubt without first making any specific findings on such evidence.…

…He denied the offence and said the evidence of PW1 was false. During cross-examination, he denied shouting that the deceased was a thief and repeated that the evidence of PW1 was false.…

…The prosecution case was dependent on the evidence of PW1.…

…The trial court warned himself of the danger of convicting the appellant on uncorroborated evidence of a child but found that from the evidence on record there was no reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who defiled…

…to the prejudice of the appellant; in failing to sufficiently appraise the evidence of the trial court as was bound to as a first appellate court; in upholding a conviction that was founded on evidence by the prosecution…

…There was no other evidence of any other kind whatever against the appellant.…

…The first ground of appeal that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction is a matter of law, though whether the evidence is sufficient (when there is some evidence) is a matter of fact: See R v T Mohamed…