قتيلة الشنطه و قتيلة الكوشه و اخرين

Quote: The identification parade. Leasing aside the irregularities referred to by the Court in its judgment, I do not think that the accused was identified by the prosecution witnesses. Superintendent of Police, Mohamed Abdel Gadir Ismail, who conducted the parade. stated that all the women with the exception of Hawa Adam Musa did not identify the accused. As to Hawa, he stated that he held three parades, that in one parade she picked El Kurdi, who was a suspect, and that in the two other parades where none of the suspects was put with the other men on the parade, she picked the accused. Furthermore, Superintendent of Police, Yahya Hussein, stated that when he showed the photographs bf accused and other suspects to Hawa, the latter was confused. In addition, two other women, namely Asha Ibrahim and Maryam Adam, picked a certain Mohamed Wali as the person who was one day drinking beer in the house of the deceased. This shows definitely that Hawa was not sure that accused was the boy friend of Asha. If he was the person who frequented her house, there would have been no difficulty in identifying him. If the story given by her and other prostitutes were correct, there would have been no difficulty in picking him out at the parade. Other, evidence of Identifacation The Court stated that Asha’s colleagues knew the accused before the incident. The Court stated that P.W. 7 and P.W.8 saw the accused in the house of Asha three times before the incident and believed their testimony. At the trial, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 (Maryam Adam and Asha Ibrahim) stated that they saw the accused three times; on one occasion he came with a person called Sid Ahmed and on another occasion they drank beer in Asha’s house. at the identification parade (they did not identify the accused, and both of them picked another person, by name Mohamed Wali. When they were cross-examined they explained they knew the accused, but they did not pick him out as they were afraid of his relatives. No Court of Law would accept such explanation. as these women know perfectly well that they are under the protection of the police. Before the iron trunk was discosered, Maryam (P.W.7) told the police (pages 3-4 Case Diary) that she was told by Munira that deceased left the house in company of a tall and fat man who was wearing a dark suit. She did not mention the name of accused. If she really knew him, she would hase mentioned his name and given a correct description of his shape and occupation. At the trial, Munira (PW.6) stated that Asha went with accused, who was well known to her, but before the discovery of the trunk she made the following statement to the police (page 6 of the Case Diary) “After I left the bathroom, I heard a person knocking at the door. I asked whom do you want, and the person-asked me to call Asha for him .... When Asha opened the door, I saw a tall man medium in size wearing a suit the colour of which I do not know, nor do I know his colour, and if I saw him I could not identify him, because it was dark at 7 pm.” How can one believe the staement made by this witness at the trial, when she made such a statement at the time she was interrogated by the police and at a time when no one suggested that the accused was the murderer. Hawa Adam stated on page 5 of the Case Diary that the deceased went with a person who was fat (thick), tall, and dark in colour and Was wearing a dark suit. These descriptions do not correspond with the accused’s description. The first statement in the Case Diary is always preferable to statements made later, when the witness hears other people discussing the case and becomes influenced by their opinions. One important point which strikes me is that if these women really knew the accused as the alleged at the trial, they would ha naturally reported to the police that the deceased left her house in company of accused, The explanation that they were afraid of him or his relatives is most unsatisfactory, since he is not a man in authority. I should like to make it clear that I did not disbelieve the evidence of Asha’s colleagues because they are prostitutes or are of bad character. I did not believe them because they gave statements at the investigation which are different from those at the trial and magisterial enquiries.