The Appellants were jointly charged with and convicted of
the offence of armed robbery. Their appeal to the High Court was summarily
rejected. Aggrieved they appeal to the Court of Appeal. In the Court they
challenged the summary dismissal of their appeal and pointed out that the
prosecution did not prove their case at the required standard of proof. They
also claimed that the conditions of identification on the material night were
difficult and unfavourable because the bandits had a torch so their
identification was not watertight. The 2nd Appellant further
contended that PW1’s PF3, Exhibit P1, should not be accorded weight because the
doctor who prepared it did not testify in court. The trial magistrate, he
complained, did not comply with the provisions of section 240 (3) of the
Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 which require the trial court to inform the
accused his right to require the doctor who prepared the PF3 to appear in
court.