Perjury contra. section
118 of Criminal
Code-Insufficiency of Evidence.
Held: Appeal allowed, conviction
quashed, etc.
There is no need to set out the
facts. C.
N. S. Pollard
for Crown. Appellant not
present.
The following joint judgment was
delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, CAREY
AND GRAHAM PAUL, JJ.
The appellant in this case was
convicted in the High Court of
the Enugu-Onitsha Division of
perjury contrary to section 118
of the Criminal Code and
sentenced to six months LH.L. He
appeals to this Court and
counsel for the Crown agrees
that there is no evidence to
support the conviction.
In the first place the testimony
alleged to be given is not
sufficiently proved. It is
regrettable that the exact words
alleged to constitute the
perjury are not set out in the
particulars. This should always
be done, more especially as
section 47 A of the Protectorate
Courts Ordinance provides for a
record to be kept by .Judge and
expressly provides that that
record or a certified true copy
thereof shall be admitted as
evidence of the proceedings and
of the statements made by the
witnesses.
In this case one witness swears
that the testimony alleged to be
given by the appellant was so
given, and a certified true copy
of the record in the case was
put in presumably to
corroborate the witness's
evidence. But on examination
this record does not corroborate
that the appellant gave the
testimony alleged. Some
testimony is recorded which is
capable of being interpreted so
as to corroborate but is also
capable of a different
interpretation. This is not
sufficient and the conviction
cannot be upheld for this reason
alone.
In addition the evidence that
what the appellant is alleged to
have said is untrue is also
insufficient.
No witness is called to prove
this of his own knowledge.
Instead the evidence relied upon
consists of
(a)
a record of Y proceedings in a
Native Court which
per se
is not evidence, and
(b)
the
evidence of the other witnesses
in the same case in which the
alleged false testimony was
given. This is only hearsay
though the record is admissible
as evidence of the statements
made by the witnesses it is not
evidence of the truth of such
statements
