Mohamed s/o Issa v. R., Crim. App. 1-D-68, 21/2/68, Georges C. J.

Mohamed s/o Issa v. R., Crim. App. 1-D-68, 21/2/68, Georges C. J.

Accused was convicted of burglary, stealing, and assault with intent to prevent lawful apprehension. The events out of which these convictions arose took place on 25^th July, 1966, but no attempt was made to apprehend accused until 21^st February, 1967, although during this time accused lived at his house which was near the police station and complainant had allegedly identified accused both to a neighbour and in a police report shortly after the crime took place. The police report was not introduced into evidence.

            Held: “It is important that the police should produce the statements made by the witnesses at the time to support their allegations that they did identify the appellant. Such statements are clearly admissible under section 166 of the Evidence Act, Act No. 6 of 1967.” [Citing Mario Wako Kella v. R., Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, Crim. App. 106 of 1967] Without such evidence, the delay in attempting to apprehend accused casts doubt on complainant’s identification and the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Convictions quashed.