Lugakingira, J.: I admitted this case to revision upon realising that the accused's C conviction was not based on legal evidence. The accused was convicted of house-breaking and stealing, the evidence against him being a confession he made to police sergeants during interrogation as well as the police statement of one of the sergeants which was admitted at the trial. D
The accused said he was beaten hard during the interrogation. This was earlier deposed to by PW. 2 who said "The policeman told the accused that if he does not give the money he will be beaten. There and then the accused entered in his room and came out with Shs. 780/=". It is evident, therefore, that the confession was involuntary and could E not be acted upon. On the other hand, the trial magistrate purported to admit the statement of a sergeant who was said to be in Uganda under s. 34B (2)(b) of the Evidence Act. He thought that the signature of the deponent was sufficient for the statement to be put in evidence. With respect, he was wrong in taking that view. F
The provisions of s. 34 (B) (2) are cumulative and all the paragraphs (a) to (f) have to be satisfied. Hence, to admit the statement, it must be reasonably impracticable to call the deponent; the statement must have been signed by him; it must contain a declaration on liability for perjury; a copy must have been previously served on the accused; the G accused must have failed to serve a notice of objection within ten days; and, where the deponent cannot read, it must be accompanied by a declaration of the person who read it to the effect that it was so read. In this case the first two requirements only were satisfied. The statement was then inadmissible. H
It is thus clear that the accused's convictions had no legal basis, there being no other evidence to connect him with the offence. I therefore quash the convictions and set aside the sentences and order the accused's release from custody.
I Conviction quashed.
A
