The Appellant was charged with the offence of armed robbery contrary to sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code [Cap 16 R.E. 2002]. The trial court acquitted his co-accused but was satisfied that the evidence of visual identification given by the witness was sufficient to identify the Appellant and place him at the scene of crime. But, without convicting the Appellant, the trial court imposed a sentence of thirty years in prison. His appeal in the High Court was dismissed for want of merit. In addition, the judge ordered the Appellant to suffer twelve strokes of the cane. The Appellant preferred this second appeal.