after the finding of the case to answer, were required to be quashed or expunged and then to order the case to return to the High Court. iii. That considering the silence of the court’s record on whether the postmortem report, which was the exhibit (P1), and the sketch map, which was the exhibit (P2), were shown and/or read to the Applicant in order to know its contents, the trial court and the first appellate court were wrong to convict the Applicant based on those exhibits and that they should have been expunged from the evidence. iv. That the trial court and the appellate court erred both in law in fact by relying on the visual identification by Veronica John (PW), who was an inconsistent and unreliable witness, to convict the Applicant without considering that Veronica John (PW) framed her evidence in order to implicate the Applicant in this offence, for being evicted from the house of the Applicant’s mother. v. That the trial court and the appellate court did not assign reasons as to why it discarded or disbelieved the defence’s evidence. 67. The Court will proceed to examine these five (5) grievances in light of Article 7(1) of the Charter. i. Allegation relating to the closing of the prosecution’s case 68. The Applicant alleges that the trial court and the appellate court erred in law and in fact by proceeding with the defence case while there was no court order to close the prosecution’s case. * 69. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant had already raised this issue as his second ground of appeal before the Court of Appeal and that the Court of Appeal had already finalised this contention. The Respondent State references the Court of Appeal’s decision where it held that: While we appreciate that the trial Court did not indicate that it marked the case close, we hasten to say that actually that is not one of the 19