|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| September 1994 |
|
|
Contradictory identification evidence and mere suspicion failed to establish a prima facie case of murder; accused acquitted.
Criminal law – No case to answer – identification evidence – contradictions and unreliability of witnesses – prima facie case – suspicion from a grudge insufficient to ground charge.
|
8 September 1994 |
| August 1994 |
|
|
Accused acquitted where contradictory, unreliable identification and witness evidence failed to establish a prima facie case.
Criminal law – No-case submission – sufficiency of evidence – identification evidence – contradictions and inconsistencies – effect of passage of time – standard for prima facie case (Ramanlal T. Bhatt v. R)
|
15 August 1994 |
|
Accused acquitted where identification was doubtful despite proof that murder and aggravated robbery occurred.
Criminal law – Murder and aggravated robbery – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Identification evidence at night – need for corroboration and reliability – malice inferred from use of firearm – post‑mortem not essential to prove death.
|
15 August 1994 |
|
Court found complainant unreliable, confession questionable and corroboration inadequate, so prosecution failed to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – Rape – Credibility of complainant’s evidence – contradictions and intoxication affecting reliability; corroboration required where necessary
Evidence – Charge and caution statement – voluntariness and admissibility; retraction/repudiation and its weight
Corroboration – absence of physical exhibits and weak lay corroboration undermining prosecution case
Consent – effect of complainant’s intoxication on issue of consent
|
15 August 1994 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt due to an unreliable complainant, doubtful confession and inadequate corroboration.
Criminal law – Rape – Credibility of complainant – Material contradictions undermining testimony – Corroboration cannot cure intrinsically untruthful evidence
Evidence – Confession/charge and caution statement – admissibility after trial‑within‑a‑trial and weight of confession where possibly retracted or inconsistent
Evidence – Corroboration – absence of key exhibits and unreliable witness accounts limits probative value
|
15 August 1994 |
|
Acquittal where complainant's testimony and a retracted police confession were found unreliable, leaving the prosecution without proof.
Criminal law – Rape – ingredients: unlawful carnal knowledge, lack of consent, identity of accused – necessity of proof beyond reasonable doubt
Evidence – Credibility of complainant – contradictions, intoxication and effect on reliability
Evidence – Corroboration – limits where primary witness is not intrinsically credible
Evidence – Confessions – charge-and-caution statements, retracted/repudiated confessions and requirement for independent satisfaction of truth (s.24 Evidence Act; authorities cited)
|
15 August 1994 |
|
Prosecution proved theft and use of a gun but failed to prove accuseds’ participation beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
Criminal law – Aggravated robbery – Elements: theft, use of a deadly weapon, participation of accused. Identification evidence – Night-time identification, intoxication, contradictory accounts, need for caution. Confession evidence – Repudiated confession, prosecution must prove authenticity and surrounding circumstances; insufficient proof negates evidential value. Co-accused statements – Require independent corroboration before being acted upon to convict another accused
Exhibits/recoveries – Non‑production or unexplained chain of custody weakens prosecution case. Burden of proof – Remains on prosecution throughout; doubts resolved for accused
|
15 August 1994 |
| July 1994 |
|
|
|
20 July 1994 |
|
Uncorroborated complainant testimony, compounded by contradictions and lack of medical evidence, was insufficient to convict for defilement.
Criminal law — Defilement — Elements: unlawful sexual intercourse, complainant under 16, identity of accused
Evidence — Sexual offences — Danger of convicting on uncorroborated complainant testimony; need for independent corroboration where available
Evidence — Witness reliability — Contradictions and unexplained discrepancies can negate corroboration
Evidence — Medical evidence — Absence of prompt/convincing medical evidence weighs against prosecution in sexual offence cases
Procedure — Prima facie case requires accused to answer but is distinct from proof beyond reasonable doubt
|
20 July 1994 |
|
Prosecution failed to prove defilement beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable witnesses and lack of corroborative medical evidence.
Criminal law – Defilement (sexual intercourse with a girl under 18) – requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt – corroboration of complainant’s evidence in sexual offences – reliability of witnesses – evidential weight of medical evidence; burden of proof remains on the prosecution.
|
20 July 1994 |
|
Acquittal where night-time identification was unreliable and the identification parade was improperly conducted, leaving no prima facie case.
Criminal law – Robbery with violence – Identification evidence – Reliability of identification at night – Identification parade standards and defects – Requirement of corroboration – Prima facie case and no-case to answer.
|
8 July 1994 |
|
Despite credibility problems in eyewitness evidence, the court held a prima facie case existed and ordered the accused to enter his defence.
Criminal law – murder – prima facie case; identification evidence; contradictions and self‑contradictions in eyewitness testimony; no‑case submission; motive (land dispute) and credibility; standard for calling accused to enter defence.
|
8 July 1994 |
|
Whether an identification and a flawed parade established a prima facie case against the accused.
Criminal law – robbery – identification evidence; Identification parade – procedural safeguards and Ssentale rules; Prima facie case – requirement before calling accused to answer; Corroboration of visual identification; Reliability of witness under stress.
|
6 July 1994 |
| June 1994 |
|
|
Accused convicted of manslaughter on his plea; court accepted mitigation and imposed imprisonment with remand credit.
Criminal law – Plea bargaining/plea to lesser charge – Acceptance of guilty plea to manslaughter where prosecution raises no objection and accused admits facts; sentencing – balancing gravity of causing death against mitigation (provocation, first offender, ill health, family responsibilities, credit for remand).
|
28 June 1994 |
|
Uncorroborated recovery and absent identification meant no prima facie case against the accused for aggravated robbery.
Criminal law – Robbery – Aggravated robbery – Requirement of prima facie case before calling accused to answer – Bhatt test; identification evidence – where complainant did not know or see accused; recovery of stolen property – necessity to exhibit recovered items and produce competent witnesses (police) to prove recovery and chain of custody.
|
28 June 1994 |
|
Accused acquitted of defilement because prosecution failed to prove the complainant was under the statutory age.
Criminal law – Defilement – Essential ingredient: age of complainant – Where prosecution fails to prove statutory age, no prima facie case established – No‑case‑to‑answer submission succeeds; amendment of indictment not decided at no‑case stage.
|
15 June 1994 |
|
Accused convicted of manslaughter; court credits remand time and personal mitigation when imposing sentence.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – guilty plea accepted; sentencing principles – mitigation (voluntary surrender, remorse, first offender, dependents, ill‑health) – credit for time spent on remand.
|
15 June 1994 |
|
Court accepted guilty plea to manslaughter and imposed three years’ imprisonment, crediting remand and mitigating factors.
Criminal law – Manslaughter – Plea to lesser offence accepted where accused admits causing death but denies intent to kill
Sentencing – Mitigating factors: self‑reporting, guilty plea, extended remand, first‑offender status, serious illness (HIV/AIDS)
Sentencing – Remand time to run against imposed sentence
|
15 June 1994 |