The Appellant was charged and convicted with the offence of armed robbery. Not satisfied with the decision of the trial District Court, he preferred this appeal intending to impugn the decision of the District Court. During the trial, the victim of robbery was not called to testify on how he was robbed and how he identified the Appellant in the identification parade. It was PW1, PW2 and PW5 who testified on how the robbery was conducted and how the Appellant was identified, hence presenting hearsay evidence. The evidence leading to his conviction was based on suspicion and the circumstantial evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW5.