since it was made voluntarily and this was proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the court satisfied itself that it was not induced by any threat, promise or other prejudice.32 It asserts that the caution statement was recorded in compliance with Section 54(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap 20 R.E 2002] which obliges a police officer to notify the arrested person of his right to call an advocate, relative or friend to be present when recording the statement, which PW4 did. That the Applicant was notified of this right but declined to have anyone present and after the statement was recorded by PW4, it was read back to him and he agreed to sign it. 83. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant’s decision to retract/repudiate his own statement at the trial was an afterthought because it vividly explains how the grotesque murder was planned and executed. In any case, it submits, that a retracted confession can be safely relied upon as was held by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in the case of Hassan Juma Kanenyera and Others v. Republic [1992] TLR, 100. The Respondent State further argues that just because the statement was recorded at a hospital does not diminish the fact that it was recorded voluntarily since the Applicant was not forced or induced to record it as determined by the High Court when the voire dire was held. As such this allegation should be dismissed for lack of merit. 84. Citing its own jurisprudence in the Court of Appeal case in Goodluck Kyando v. Republic [2006], the Respondent State surmises that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt since all the prosecution witnesses were credible and reliable and therefore, there was no need to disbelieve their testimony. Moreover, the law does not prohibit conviction based on circumstantial evidence if it leads to the conclusion that it is the accused person who committed the offence he has been charged with. The Respondent State surmises that the Applicant was not convicted solely on the circumstantial evidence alone but on the caution statement as well See page 16 of the Court of Appeal judgment the Court stated that; - “like the learned trial judge we are satisfied that the appellant gave the statement voluntary”. 32 24