1944 Present: Howard C.J. and Jayetileke J.

SINGHO APPU, Appellant, and THE KING, Respondent.

50- D. C. (Crim.), Colombo, 606.

Evidence-Foot-print-Charge of housebreaking and theft-Foot-print found on a table, the only evidence-Inference of guilt-Evidence Ordinance, s. 45.

Where on an indictment for housebreaking and theft, the only evidence against the accused was that of a foot-print which was found on a table at the scene of the offence and which was identified as that of the accused by an expert who gave adequate reasons for his opinion

Held, that the Court could convict the accused on the evidence of the foot-print though it was the sole ground of identification.

APPEAL from a conviction by the District Judge of Colombo.

L. A. Rajapakse, K.C (with him S. W. Jayasuriya), for the accused, appellant.-The appellant has been convicted of housebreaking and theft. The conviction is based solely on the opinion of a finger-print expert that a foot-print found at the scene of the offence is that of the accused. finger impressions only, and not foot impressions, are mentioned in section 45 of the Evidence Ordinance. The evidentiary val