Hepworth J:

The appellant had been convicted in the Sessions Court, Penang, of the offence of robbery under s. 392 of the Penal Code and had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment. From this conviction and sentence the appellant appealed.

There were eight grounds of appeal, three of which raised questions of law and the remainder questions of fact.

The defence was one of alibi. From his grounds of judgment the learned President appears to have considered that there was an onus on the appellant of proving his alibi PARA beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that this was a misdirection in law as all that the appellant had to do was to cast a doubt upon the prosecution story. With this submission I agreed.

It also appears from the learned President's grounds of judgment that he thought it was necessary for the evidence of the appellant as to his alibi to be corroborated by independent witnesses. Whereas corroboration would, of course, have strengthened the appellant's defence the appellant's statement on oath alone as to where he was at the time the alleged offence was committed was quite sufficient by itself, if he was to be believed. I