70. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant is challenging the
validity of the caution statement admitted by the High Court as evidence
because, according to him, it was involuntarily recorded after he had been
threatened, beaten and coerced into recording it at the police station. The
Court finds that the Applicant does not provide any evidence to prove the
allegation of torture or intimidation by the police authorities. In fact, records
on file indicate that on 11 February 2014, the High Court held the voir dire
to determine whether the Applicant freely recorded the caution statement or
was forced to do so using threat and violence.
71. On 17 February 2014, the High Court ruled that the caution statement was
recorded voluntarily by the Applicant and thereafter, admitted it as part of
the evidence. In coming to this conclusion, the court considered the
Applicant’s assertions that he only signed the form which was written for
him without knowing its contents, after he had been slapped and punched.
The court observed that the specific details provided in the caution
statement and the narration of the planning and execution of the murder
was very specific and could only have been known by the Applicant. The
court also considered the fact that if the police wanted to frame the
Applicant, then the statement would have indicated that the Applicant
personally carried out the murder rather than implicating the two deceased
accomplices. Furthermore, the court considered the short period of time it
took the Applicant to record the statement at the police station before he
was transferred to the hospital for medical treatment and, finally, it
considered the grateful demeanor of the Applicant towards the police for
rescuing him from the mob which was set on killing him as it did to the two
accomplices. In view of all the above, the court concluded that the Applicant
was not beaten by the police but rather by the mob and that the caution
statement was voluntarily recorded.
72. This Court observes that the record of proceedings at the High Court show
that the Applicant alleged that he had been beaten by both the mob and at
20