Sep 12, 2011, 1:53 PM
In her judgement, the trial magistrate stated that following the accused’s denial of the offence charge, the case proceeded to full trial, adding that the prosecution, in trying to prove their case, called five witnesses.
She said the accused person also testified and called four witnesses.
Magistrate Jeng added that two questions arose; that was who had the burden of proving the case and what the stand of proof required.
She said it was a burden on the prosecution to prove every case beyond reasonable doubts, adding that in this case, she formulated the following questions; whether the prosecution had proved the case in order to determine if the accused unlawfully damaged the said property.
The trial magistrate further stated that PW1 and PW2 said things that they heard from other people during their testimony which were unacceptable in court.
The accused was charged with willful damage to property and what was expected of the prosecution was to prove whether the accused did it, she said.
The prosecution failed to establish that there was a house built on the said land that was demolished by the accused, she added.
Since the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts, she would acquit and discharge him, declared the magistrate.