Wakilii

Rex v Shipemba (Cr. App. No. 125-1938)

East African Court of Appeal · [1938] EACA 139 · 1938 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction by High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
Conviction upheld; appellant remains convicted

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

Appeal from criminal conviction dismissed. The Court held that despite discrepancies between depositions and trial evidence, and excluding a statement to a village headman as an inadmissible confession under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, abundant evidence remained to sustain the conviction. The Court noted that where defence counsel attacks the prosecution case by highlighting discrepancies between depositions and trial evidence, the depositions should be formally put in evidence.

Outcome

Conviction upheld; appellant remains convicted

Facts

The appellant was convicted by the High Court of Tanganyika. At trial, discrepancies existed between the depositions taken at the lower court and the evidence given at trial. The appellant had made a statement to a village headman. Defence counsel at trial attacked the prosecution case by drawing attention to the discrepancies between depositions and trial evidence. Two defence witnesses requested by the appellant in the lower court did not appear at trial, though counsel for the accused indicated he did not wish to call them.

Issues

  1. Whether discrepancies between depositions and trial evidence warranted overturning the conviction.
  2. Whether a statement made to a village headman constituted an inadmissible confession under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Depositions — Procedure when discrepancies exist between depositions and trial evidence
Where counsel for the defence attacks the prosecution case by drawing attention to discrepancies between the depositions and the evidence at the trial, he should have the depositions put in evidence.
Evidence — Confessions — Admissibility — Statement to village headman
A statement made by an accused person to a village headman which is probably a confession is inadmissible under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Criminal Procedure — Attendance of witnesses — Defence witnesses
It is desirable to have not only all Crown witnesses present at trial but also defence witnesses for whom the appellant has asked in the lower court.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Indian Evidence Act s.25

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Rex v Shipemba (Cr. App. No. 125-1938) [1938] EACA 139 (1 January 1938)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.