The court held that as the first appellate court,
it is required to evaluate the evidence and draw
independent inferences on matters of law and
fact. That if the judge had properly evaluated
the evidence, she would have wished to find
out the reason of the appellant walking with
the clutches. That the judge merely glossed
over the issue of torture and didn’t make any
specific finding on it. That it was beyond doubt
that the appellants were tortured. That the
charge and caution statement signed by the
appellant was illegal since it was signed by
someone who didn’t understand the language it
was recorded. That the admission of the

identification was faulty as there were no
favorable identification conditions and the
identification parade wasn’t conducted. That
there was no evidence to conclude that the
recovered gun was the murder weapon since no
ballistic report was confirmed the allegation.
That the trial magistrate didn’t evaluate the
evidence properly in totality.