On the material evening PW1 was in his house having supper with his family including his wife PW4, PW3 and his other children. PW5 who was their house helper was outside the house with the 1st accused who was their watchman. Their supper was interrupted by the knock on the door by the 1st accused. After opening the door three men armed with pangas got in and attacked PW1 and PW4 before robbing them. At the same time PW5 who had been outside the house was also attacked and robbed of her cellular phone before being locked in the outer toilet. The alarm raised by PW1 and his family made neighbours including PW2 to rush at the scene but it was after the robbers had fled. The incident was therefore reported to the Police Station. After a week the police conducted an identification parade whereby PW4 who claimed to have properly identified the robbers at the scene of crime during the incident identified the Appellant as one of the robbers involved in the incident. After a week the police conducted an identification parade at which the Appellant was identified as one of the robbers involved in the incident. The trial court found the Appellant guilty of all the six counts, hence, this appeal