This was an appeal against conviction on grounds that, the trail judge erred when he failed to direct himself on the serious contradictions in the prosecution evidence concerning evidence of arrest of the appellants, dress code, and evidence of the identifying witnesses. The court however, found that the contradictions were minor and did not indicate any falsehood in the prosecution evidence.
Further, counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to produce the blood stained clothes before court, and that it failed to call the investigating officer. The court found that the appellants had been arrested during broad day light and that they were well known to the prosecution, thus, failure to produce the blood stained clothes did not affect the decision of the judge. Further, it was found that, the absence of the investigating officer did not weaken the prosecution evidence in any way.
Counsel for the appellant further argued that the court wrongly rejected the appellants’ alibi.