The Court held that in a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt. The accused is entitled to be acquitted if a reasonable doubt can be raised.
Facts of the Case
The appellant was charged with theft of two chicken and alternatively with dishonestly retaining stolen property. After he gave evidence and called his witnesses in his defence, he was convicted because the learned Magistrate said: “On the whole I am unable to believe the defence.” The appellant appeal to the High Court on one ground.
Issue of the Case
Whether the learned Magistrate had misdirected himself as to the meaning of the burden of proof and makes it necessary for the accused to rebut the prosecution case against himself?
Judgment of the Case
The Court held that the correct law for the Magistrate to apply is as follows.
(a) If you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt. → Convict.
(b) If you accept or believe the accused's explanation. → Acquit.
(c) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation. → Do not convict but consider the next steps below.
(d) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation and that explanation does not raise in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. → Convict
(e) If you do not accept or believe the accused's explanation but nevertheless it raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. → Acquit
The Court held that the burden of proving the accused’s guilt lies entirely on the prosecution. If the accused raised a doubt, the prosecution failed to satisfy his burden of proof. The Court allowed the appeal.
Comments