Burden of Proof

Kalange v Uganda (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18/1994) [1996] UGHCCRD 2 (22 January 1996);

Flynote: 

Search Summary: 

This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence by the lower court. The appellant was convicted with store breaking and theft at the premises where he was supposed to be on guard duty. He was convicted with others who never appealed. Court highlighted the duty of the first appellant court as regards dealing with evaluation of evidence.

Headnote and Holding: 

Issue of participation, court held that none prosecution did not satisfy that the appellant participated in the commission of the offence.

On the issue of circumstantial evidence, court held that the circumstances under which the court relied in convicting the accused was dangerously weak and could not safely support a conviction.

Court held with much certainty that the prosecution did not discharge its burden of proof that the appellant committed the offence and allowed his appeal.

On the issue of a harsh sentence, court held that a sentence of three years or 36 months cannot be regarded as being harsh and excessive  considering the crime and the circumstances under which it was committed and in view of the fact that the maximum sentence for the offence is seven years.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Burden of Proof