identification by only one person at the scene of the crime and that the evidence of this witness was not credible. He submits that the witness had claimed to be familiar with the Applicant before the incident, as he was a frequent visitor to the scene, but that the witness did not name him at the earliest time. The Applicant submits that the evidence tendered in court was based on suspicion, since, in fact, he claims he was a stranger in the area where the crime occurred. 56. In his Reply, the Applicant also contends that the trial and appellate courts did not consider his defence of alibi. Furthermore, the Applicant claims that the evidence relied upon to convict him was insufficient, considering that he was not found at the scene of the incident, that one of the persons who had allegedly seen him running in the village was never called as a witness and that no blood tests were conducted on the blood claimed to have been seen on the Applicant’s body. The Applicant maintains that he was simply arrested because he was a stranger. * 57. The Respondent State disputes the allegations of the Applicant. It states that the Court of Appeal while determining the appeal, sat as an appellate court and not as a trial court. It further argues that the credibility of PW1 and the identification of the Applicant was among the grounds of appeal adequately addressed and finally determined by the Court of Appeal, as reflected in pages 4,5, 8 and 9 of its judgment. Specifically, the Respondent State refers to page 9 of the Court of Appeal’s judgment which stated: Looking at the record we find PW1’s testimony very elaborate. She knew the appellant. Even though she did not mention his name, but the description given and the fact that she identified him as Ana-Joyces’s [sic] sister left no doubt as to who the appellant was. The ability to name the culprit at the earliest possible moment strengthened the credibility of the witness. 15