//
archives

police supervision

This tag is associated with 1 post

IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED – Whether the accused was known to the identifying witness at the time of the offence. (ii) The Length of time the witness took to identify the accused. (iii) The distance from which the witness identified the accused. (iv) The source of light that was available at the material time. We agree with the statement of the law. PW3, the victim of the robbery was the only eye witness. According to his testimony, he saw the appellant and another person near the gate of his house,where there was electric lights. On that point he testified as follows: “I arrived there at 9.00.p.m. At my gate I found the accused and another person. I knew the accused before but I did not know his companion. Accused stayed at a building facing my shop. At my gate there are big electric lights so I recognized the accused. I asked them whether they were my visitors. I was in front of them. Accused there upon moved about 3 meters and got a pistol and pointed it at me. He asked me to sit on the ground and I complied. He told me to hand over my cell phone to his companion. I did so. He further asked me to hand over all the money I had on me to his companion. I had shs. 2,700/= which I handed over as told. His companion had a cable wire. Accused told his friend that the money I had handed over was too little so he should beat me up to disclose where the rest of the money was. The companion beat me up very badly. Accused said that if I did not hand over more money they would kill me. I raised an alarm then and those inside the gate raised alarm. Accused’s companion told accused that they should kill me and then go away. I got off the ground immediately and took hold of accused. Hiscompanion came and started beating me up again while I held the accused on the ground. I then left the accused and took hold of his companion. Accused went and was hurt by the thorns of the fence. I too got hurt by the thorns and remained on the ground. The attackers ran away and left me there”. The witness was severely beaten by the appellant and his confederate. However, there was light, he knew the appellant before and talked to the two before they began assaulting him. The argument by appellant’s counsel that in such circumstances the victim could not have identified the appellant is not, therefore tenable. The submission by appellant’s counsel that there was a gap between the time PW3 was attacked and when he identified the appellant at the police station on the following day is, to say the least, ridiculous. PW3 knew the appellant before and he saw and recognized him at the time before he was attacked and during the attack itself. The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal properly re-evaluated the evidence of identification at the time of the robbery and came to the right conclusion that witness properly saw and recognized the appellant as his attacker. Counsel for the appellant criticized the Court of Appeal for not finding PW3 a liar because he testified that he heard from five hundred metres away people shouting that they had arrested a thief. With due respect, we think that counsel’s contention is not based on any scientific evidence that one cannot hear people shouting five hundred metres away. Besides, Habib Kapere, PW5 testified that when he heard the alarm he went to PW3’s house from where he heard people saying that they had arrested a thief. He went to the scene and found someone being assaulted. He went and called the police who came to the scene and took the appellant away. We note that the evidence of PW5 and PW3 on this point was not at all challenged by the appellant in cross-examination.

    THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDAAT THE KAMPALA   (CORAM: TSEKOOKO, KATUREEBE, KITUMBA, TUMWESIGYE, KISAAKYE, JJ.S.C.)CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2009BETWEENBEIGANA KANONI WILLY::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANTANDUGANDA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT   [An Appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal at Kampala (Mukasa-Kikonyogo DCJ, Mpagi Bahigeine and Byamugisha, JJ.A), dated 19th May, … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,886,955 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com