Rex v Petro and Another (Cr.A. 98-1936.)
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
The Court held that where Tanganyika law contains no provision corresponding to section 164 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, the words 'taken in accordance with law' in section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to an alleged confession recorded by a magistrate outside a judicial proceeding. The quantum of evidence required to prove such a confession is as full as under English law. Without calling the interpreter who translated the accused's statement, the recorded confession was mere hearsay and insufficient to support conviction.
Outcome
Appellant acquitted and discharged
Facts
The appellant was convicted by the High Court of Tanganyika for the murder of Maguja bin Kisisi. At trial, the Crown relied on Exhibit 'I', a document purporting to record a confession made by the appellant to Mr. Macpherson, a magistrate, before the preliminary inquiry commenced. Mr. Macpherson did not understand the native language spoken by the accused and relied on an interpreter, Makenya bin Sembalwa, to communicate. The Crown did not call the interpreter as a witness at trial. Mr. Macpherson stated he was acting as a magistrate in relation to section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act when recording the alleged confession.
Issues
- Whether an alleged extra-judicial confession recorded by a magistrate outside of a judicial proceeding could be proved by presumption under section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act without calling the interpreter as a witness.
Orders
- Conviction quashed.
- Appellant acquitted.
- Appellant ordered released from custody.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Indian Evidence Act s.80
- Indian Evidence Act s.27
- Indian Code of Criminal Procedure s.164
- Criminal Procedure Code s.211
- Criminal Procedure Code s.266
Cases cited (1)
- Rex v Chuma arap Kimenja (15 K.L.R. 102)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.