Suffian J:

This appeal is allowed only on one ground. The appellant charged with theft of two chickens and alternatively with dishonestly retaining stolen property namely one chicken gave evidence and called witnesses in his defence at the end of which he was convicted because in the words of the learned Magistrate "On the whole I am unable to believe the defence." I agree with Inche Christie, Counsel for the appellant, that the learned Magistrate has seriously misdirected himself as to the meaning of the burden of proof by the accused in eases where it is necessary for him to rebut the prosecution case against him.

The correct law for Magistrates to apply is as follows. If you accept the explanation given by or on behalf of the accused, you must of course acquit. But this does not entitle you to convict if you do not believe that explanation, for he is still entitled to an acquittal if it raises in your mind a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, as the onus of proving his guilt lies throughout on the prosecution. If upon the whole evidence you are left in a real state of doubt, the prosecution has failed to satisfy the onus of proof which lies upon it.

The position may be