Feb 4, 2009, 7:55 AM
The defence witness told the court under cross examination that he had lived with the accused for several years, but never heard or witnessed that the accused was a thief.
Asked by the prosecutor whether he used to go out with the accused in town, the witness replied that he did not use to move out with the accused, because when he the witness would go to work, he used to close at night.
Further asked whether he knew if the accused was working, he told the court the accused was working, but was a casual worker and did not have any specific place of work.
It was put to him by the prosecutor that he knew nothing in the case; he only came to mislead the court, but the witness replied that if he had not known anything about the case he would not swear on the Qur’an and give evidence.
It was further put to the witness that the accused was found in possession of the said materials in LatriKunda going towards Bundung area, the witness replied that it could be possible, but he did not know the accused as a thief, and he did not see any materials with the accused on that day.
They were together in the house of the accused and the accused left him in his house, and promised to come back, the witness said.
The case continues.