91. The Applicant further avers that the Respondent State’s courts failed to
draw logical inferences from the prosecution’s omission of relevant
evidence and failed to supplement the record with tangible evidence of a
murder weapon or DNA evidence. He submits that the evidence relied on
to convict him clearly did not meet “beyond reasonable doubt”’ standard
required under the Respondent State’s criminal law.
*
92. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant’s allegations are disputed;
that they have no merit and the Applicant is put to strict proof. The
Respondent State submits that during the testimony of PW1, it was clear
that the witness was at the crime scene as she testified that she shouted for
help when she found the Applicant and his brother beating their mother and
later trying to burn her alive with banana leaves to conceal the evidence.
93. The Respondent State avers that the trial court warned itself on the dangers
of convicting on the testimony of a single witness and was satisfied that the
witness was telling the truth. It is the Respondent State’s contention that
despite the rule that corroboration should always be required in all cases
involving dying declarations, conviction on the evidence of a single witness
cannot be ruled out if the court is fully satisfied that the witness is telling the
truth. The Respondent State avers that with that type of testimony, there
was extensive evidence for the trial court to consider while making a
determination on the issue of visual identification.
94. With respect to the dying declaration, the Respondent State submits that
the deceased also told her husband that the Applicant had assaulted her
and that the trial court held that the deceased person mentioned her
assailants as the Applicant and his brother. The Respondent State argues
that the evidence was clear and, upon due assessment, the High Court
found it to be sufficient to warrant a conviction. The Respondent State
submits that the Court of Appeal also considered the evidence on record
26