- Flynote
- Criminal law|Evidence Law|Burden of Proof
- Case summary
- Issue of participation, court held that none prosecution did not satisfy that the appellant participated in the commission of the offence. On the issue of circumstantial evidence, court held that the circumstances under which the court relied in convicting the accused was dangerously weak and could not safely support a conviction. Court held with much certainty that the prosecution did not discharge its burden of proof that the appellant committed the offence and allowed his appeal. On the issue of a harsh sentence, court held that a sentence of three years or 36 months cannot be regarded as being harsh and excessive considering the crime and the circumstances under which it was committed and in view of the fact that the maximum sentence for the offence is seven years.
Loading PDF...
This document is 2.5 MB. Do you want to load it?