JUDGEMENT
Evidence - circumstantial evidence - establishment of circumstances from which guilt may be drawn - burden of proof - possession of goods alleged to be stolen - whether possession per se is proof of guilt - whether the things alleged to be stolen must be positively identified - identification of accused at the scene of crime - application of circumstantial evidence.
The appellants had been convicted by a senior resident magistrate with three others of Robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 63) and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment with eighteen strokes each.
It was alleged that the appellants in a gang of armed robbers had stolen money and other items from a bank in Naivasha. Neither the money nor the items were positively identified in evidence as those stolen from the bank. The case depended entirely upon circumstantial evidence as none of the five men was identified by anyone at the scene of crime. They appealed to the High Court and th…