000298 54.|n the instant Application, the Court observes from the judgment of the Court of Appeal that the Applicant had raised five grounds of appeal, namely: "1. That, the prosecution evidence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; 2. That the evidence for cause of death has contradictions; 3. That the evidence of DW2, the co-accused of the appellant, was not credible as the witness had confused and contradicted itself; 4. That exhibits P2 and P3 were illegally admitted and considered as their recording was done contrary to the law; and 5. That the Court did not comply with section 231 (1) (Sic. 293 (2)) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) by failure to explain to the accused (appellant) the rights expressed therein." 55. The Court notes from the record that the Court of Appeal considered all of the above grounds of appeal and reached the conclusion that the Applicant was responsible for the death of the baby. With respect to the first ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW4 dispelled any reasonable doubt as to the culpability of the Applicant and provided adequate evidence to sustain his conviction. 56.As regards the second ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal noted that there were some contradictions between the testimonies of PW2, PW3, and PW4. Whereas PW2 stated that the appellant showed them a plate in the bush which was used to carry the baby, the other two witnesses did not mention this. Furthermore, only PW 4 testified about the spear. 57. However, the Court of Appeal held that these were minor contradictions that did not go to the root of the matter, that is, the baby's cause of death. The Court of Appeal emphasised that all the three witnesses testified that it was the Applicant who led them to the bush from where they recovered the baby's corpse and that \v \,\.-)/a ,,,/ 15