Description
Succession of judges in criminal cases – successor judge – rights stipulated under S. 299(1) of the CPA – second judge – right to have the witnesses re-summoned and re-heard – overriding objective principle -questions to witnesses by assessors – section 177 of the Evidence Act – cross examination – clinical officer – evaluation of evidence – testimony given without being sworn or affirmed – proof of malice aforethought – several cuts on the body of the deceased – great force used in effecting blows – blows directed at delicate parts.
- Succession of judges in criminal cases – the successor judge did not explain to the appellant his rights stipulated under S. 299(1) of the CPA when he was commencing proceedings as a second judge (rights to have the witnesses or any of them be re-summoned and re-heard) – guided by the overriding objective principle, the Court observed that the omission is not fatal because it did no occasion any injustice (p. 12).
- The questions which are to be put to the witnesses by assessors under section 177 of the Evidence Act should not be in form of a cross examination (p. 13 and p. 14).
- Assessors cross-examined a witness contrary to the law – it was held that, on the basis of the overriding objective principle, the irregularity is not fatal since it did not prejudice the appellant. The questions which were asked by the assessors aimed at mere clarification of what she had already testified in her examination-in-chief and nothing else (pp. 14 and 15).
- Definition of a clinical officer (p. 16).
- The first appellate court is obligated to make its own evaluation of evidence which was relied upon the trial court in finding the appellant guilty (p. 18).
- The court discounted testimony which was given without being sworn or affirmed (p. 18).
- Proof of malice aforethought – several cuts were made by the appellant on the body of the deceased; great force was used by the appellant in effecting the blows on the deceased’s body and, that the blows were directed at delicate parts of the body of the deceased the stomach inclusive –the Court concluded that by virtue of those factors, malice aforethought was present (p. 20).
