The trial court's failure to afford the appellant the right to mitigate before sentencing was a fundamental breach of natural justice, vitiating the judgment and sentence.
The appeal was dismissed because the trial court properly complied with the legal requirements for receiving the testimony of a child of tender age, the evidence of the victim was credible and corroborated, minor contradictions did not affect the prosecution case, the defence was considered, and the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the sentence of thirty years imprisonment was illegal under section 154(2) of the Penal Code, as the mandatory sentence for the offence committed against a child under 18 is life imprisonment. The sentence was therefore set aside and su…
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal, holding that the respondent was not denied mitigation and that an untested expert report was properly excluded.
The prosecution proved the case of armed robbery against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through reliable identification and corroborated evidence; procedural rights to mitigation and preliminary hearing were observed; minor contradictions in evidence did not affect the core of the prosecution's case.
The prosecution failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the seized drugs and the charge sheet was fatally defective, resulting in failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. These defects go to the root of the case and entitle the appellant to acquittal.