Rex v Lalasia (Cr.A. 87-1936.)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
Held that where a confession to private persons is denied by the accused and the Crown witnesses give materially different accounts of the circumstances in which it was made, corroboration is necessary to sustain a conviction. The variation between the witnesses' accounts cast doubt on whether the confession was actually made. The appeal was allowed and the appellant acquitted.
Outcome
Appellant acquitted and discharged
Facts
The appellant was convicted of murdering a person unknown. Two boys, Ekeno and Ekidoli, sons of Napio, had been killed and it was alleged the appellant killed one of them, though it was not known which. The conviction rested almost entirely on a confession allegedly made by the appellant to two Samburu men, Sesegat and Mekeri. The appellant denied making the confession. Sesegat testified that he heard the confession when the accused was conversing with his brother Mekeri in the evening. Mekeri testified that his brother Sesegat first told him the accused had killed the boys, and he then questioned the accused. Sesegat admitted to having told lies in the matter.
Issues
- Whether corroboration of a confession made to private persons is required where the making of the confession is denied and the witnesses give conflicting accounts of the circumstances.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Appellant acquitted.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Criminal Procedure Code s.243(6)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.