Summary
The murder convictions were upheld on reliable eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and the prompt account recorded at the scene. Relationship with the deceased did not itself make the witnesses interested or unreliable. One witness’s failure to see an appellant fleeing did not disprove participation established by the eyewitnesses. An inquest officer’s mistaken impression of a bullet injury did not undermine the prosecution case proved at trial.
Issues
- Whether relationship with the deceased required rejection of eyewitness evidence.
- Whether an omission in the fleeing-witness account or the inquest description undermined the convictions.
Held
- A relative who is a natural witness is not automatically interested. Carefully scrutinised testimony that is reliable and trustworthy can sustain conviction; the evidence here withstood cross-examination. (¶ 10–12)
- PW5’s observation of only four persons fleeing did not establish that the other appellant was absent. PW11 and PW13 categorically established his presence and participation. (¶ 13)
- The inquest description of a bullet passing through the skull was a visual impression of the recording officer, explicable from the severe fractures. The medical findings and eyewitness accounts established the assault and were not displaced by that mistaken impression. (¶ 14–17)
- The evidence supported motive arising from electoral rivalry and suspicion over a relative’s imprisonment. Prompt recording of the names and roles within half an hour, followed by scene documentation and post-mortem, further supported the prosecution account. (¶ 18–21)
Result
Appeal dismissed. Convictions and sentences of the three surviving appellants, as affirmed by the High Court, maintained.