Crim. Sass. 91-M-67, 9/10/67, Cross J.
Accused and two others were charged with murder.
There was evidence that a fight started between the other two accused and
deceased in a house. Accused then entered the house without a weapon and told
the others to leave. A witness testified that accused hit deceased twice and
said he would not leave without beating deceased. However, on cross-examination
he admitted that he had seen only hands and could not be sure the blows were
inflicted by accused. At the close of the prosecution case, accused moved that
he not be called upon to make a defence since the prosecution had not made out
a prima facie case. The prosecution argued that a prima facie case had at least
been made that accused had assaulted deceased.
Held:
(1) A prima facie case at least must be one on which a reasonable tribunal
could convict if no evidence is offered by the defence. [Citing Ramanlal Ttrambaklal Batt v. R., (1957) E.A.C.A
332, 335.] The onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable
doubt; and a prima facie case is not made out if it is one which on full
consideration might possibly be thought sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Still less is a prima facie case established by part of the testimony of a
witness considered in isolation and without reference to other parts of the
witness’s testimony.
(2) The evidence of the prosecution did not establish a
prima facie case. Accused acquitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment