Enock s/o Shombe v. R., Crim. App. 119-D-68, 27/3/68, Biron J.

Enock s/o Shombe v. R., Crim. App. 119-D-68, 27/3/68, Biron J.

Accused was convicted of robbery with violence. Complainant’s wife identified him at the trial; otherwise, the evidence was entirely circumstantial; that accused was arrested in possession of some cigarettes (which were identified as stolen from the serial numbers on the packets) and some cash, and that shortly after the robbery he had behaved in a some what spendthrift manner.

            Held: “(T)he learned magistrate very properly directed himself on the circumstantial evidence; ‘the inculpatory facts were inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt’.” Conviction upheld.