Court placed the burden of proof on the prosecution and noted that the accused has no duty of proving his innocence.
The ingredients for prosecution to prove are:
a. Proof of theft. The issue was not in contention as some house hold items were taken from the house of complainant without his consent.
b. Theft was accompanied with violence. It was not in dispute that the complainant was beaten and tied up during the theft which occasioned some violence.
c. There was use or threat to use a deadly weapon. Court held that there was presence of guns as the purpose of A1 at the scene of the crime was to search for guns, it was only reasonable that he was armed himself. The guns seen at the premises were for lawful purpose and there was no firing because there was no harm intended.
d. That the accused participated in the theft. Court held that a person cannot be criminally liable for the offence committed by another person unless such a person had common intention with the other person or has expressly or indirectly authorised that other person to commit the crime. A1’s role in the said robbery was never described but he was there on official duties. A2 was compelled to the scene and had no common intention with those present to commit the crime. Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not enough. His presence was against his will and he did not take part in what was going on.