Murray-Aynsley CJ:

In this case the appellant appeals against a conviction under s. 354 of the Penal Code. Here the alleged offence was committed in respect of a young girl of eight years of age who was not sworn.Her evidence was not corroborated.In England, where unsworn evidence is given by children there is a statutory requirement of corroboration.Therefore, in England, this convection could not have stood.Here there is no such statutory requirement but it has been wisely laid down in the case of Rex V. Velayuthan [1935] 1 MLRH 438, [1935] MLJ 277 that as a matter of prudence the evidence of such children should be treated in the same way as that of an accomplice.This, I take it, is also the practice in the case of adult witnesses in rape and other cases of that kind.The Magistrate appears to have been fully aware of the absence of corroboration and he does not appear to have misdirected himself as to what was required in such a case.In such circumstances the absence of corroboration is not by itself a fatal objection to the validity of the conviction.In such a case, however, an appellate Court will scrutinize the record very carefully, because it is always an extreme thing to convict anyone on unsworn evidence.

The Magistrate was obviously favourably impressed by the evidence of the girl concerned.From reading the record there is no reason at all to suppose that he was wrong in so doing.He was also favourably impressed by the evidence of her parents.Here again there is no reason to suppose that he was wrong.Unfortunately Counsel (who did not appear on the appeal) made an accusation that the parents had concocted the charge.That accusation was entirely unsupported in evidence and must have reacted unfavourably on the appellant. I think that there can be no suggestion that this is that kind of case.However, in his grounds of judgment the Magistrate went on to say: "I was so convinced that accused, went to the secluded quarry with the girl that the only possible defences to which I could reasonably have paid attention would be that accused saw an animal crawling up the girl"s skirt, or that he smacked her because she misbehaved herself while out with him". The visit to the quarry was only testified to by the girl herself; there was no corroboration, and the girl was unsworn.Even the strongest case can be confronted by a stronger, and this case could not be described as strong.Young children are at the best unreliable witnesses, and this passage displays an attitude which would be wrong with regard to any witness or any number of witnesses.In view of this I cannot regard the conviction as satisfactory.The appeal must be allowed and the conviction quashed.

Appeal allowed.