Tadeio & Another v. R., Crim. App. 630/31-D-70; 1/1/71, Biron J.

 Tadeio & Another v. R., Crim. App. 630/31-D-70; 1/1/71, Biron J.

Appellants were convicted of housebreaking and stealing c/s 294 (1) and 265 of the Penal Code. The only evidence connecting the appellants with the offence was that given by two young girls aged 12 and 7 years respectively, both of whom gave their evidence unsworn since the Magistrate found and recorded that they did not understand the nature of an oath. In his judgment the Magistrate purported to follow Petro v. R. (1968) H. C. D. 260 and William Murray v. Fatehali Murji (1968) H. C. D. 390

            Held: 1. The Magistrate should have perused the Evidence Act 1967, Section 127(2). “There was no corroboration of the evidence of the two little girls. And it is settled law that evidence which requires corroboration cannot be corroborated by other evidence which itself requires corroboration …..The uncorroborated evidence of the two little girls which is the only factual evidence should not have been accepted.” (2) The appeals were allowed.