High Court · 2011

Judgment

1 . •i :t t ! ‘H ri’ C .st r: •‘ — ‘(a .1!’!, ;S% ,. , _.. us • Z?’ ‘-‘I; iii.’ ir I gel:! • 1- (C • ...4 C. •• t.ad ..i.’i’. •.i ‘. :j, . • . .r • ‘_ \.‘ r1!1 ‘.. •:‘ •473p: !I -it •,1fl •i — I. I 1, I 4 Fh. submission math b thc kar nc d Go e.i nm n Ph. adcr s that tlit. judm. ii’ ol is ciuntal is iab’ to lit i thc light 1 thc cidcncc plctcl n ti jtosjit t )i IUid Ic In. r c. wurn sses P \% s ) md I w is i cad in this c anni man I i thc hgh1 at tht bubmissions put torwaicl and ills r og throuuh the ti idcnc..c on rccord I nnd that PiA I c omplainant and his wilt P W had TI) C “asion ihatsocit r ident& tht accused p rsoi act )rdino t P\k ,, iccuscd i thc. c urt i. id s c. us a s thu shc. lid not stt it t c 1 i Ic F I duni. Hcntvei. m the 1-oss examination, this ttikSS stated rIitci nig 11w house •I cow plainint ‘it sa the tic thc s being takc.n o it of me cupb at d at d ‘iothinp t 1st ‘as donc th i Inc cs The witness nice) cs that tep his house door i’wk was broken. But. in this rc’garcl. ht ga [10 t(Impiaiiit U’ thc

polite. TItr trial court. I het ett)re. did run linci urn thing in thc wstimon of this itnt.ss to connect the tecused ith thc rnmpiic it c f ti-ic c rimc 8 In the light of the afort said nature of the e icienc ot P Vs.2. . arid 5. tht- heat ned juclgc’. therrinie. tound it IiflS.t’( 1’ ii 1 n’’ t11(11 ‘vstifli, ‘s nit’! js rh- ‘s’”l u: • I I 1 i tS:cc’ i-’\’ ‘ d lepost ir tnt ‘1 t.I ‘;tt (-I tiLt feel H ii 5 • •e’.’ •a’’ ‘fl i.e I : V .ta’I.a 1•1 •(..• — • ‘—? c ;. t c..’r,,: * • •_• . I lr’ a I C 1%’ • ii’ I) ) C ) BC C )1 i ) c C B C )2BC ) i c C r c 4 - ‘ C )ttC ) . ) C D ) H ) 1 ( t r ) C ) C i 9 L ) C ) C