KCC 709/2001
This case involved whether there was evidence of robbery. The case documents said the second convicted person had confessed the defendant had participated in the robbery with him. However, the ruling was invalid as there was no such confession.
Background
An appellant said in his grounds of appeal that the appealed ruling by which he was convicted of robbery had insufficient documentary evidence. He said that the court had established its ruling on the grounds of the testimony of the second convicted person though this testimony did not prove the incident.
Decision
The court of cassation said that this argument was valid. The court said that the court had established its ruling on the grounds of the testimony of the second convicted person. The court said that the documents of the case revealed that the court claimed that the second convicted person had confessed that the appellant had participated with him in the robbery. The court said that the documents of the case revealed that the second convicted person did not make any such confession. The court said that the court therefore established its ruling on an invalid basis.
The court dismissed the appeal.