2.
her face, the neck, the front of the right shoulder and right
arm. Her skull was not fractured and together with other- symptons, the Forensic Pathologist came to the conclusion that
the cause of death was a result of extensive burns.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
5.
A Government Chemist conducted an investigation at the
scene. He concluded that the fire was started deliberately and
that the seat of the fire was near the main door. He found no
trace of petrol, and judging from the pattern of heat damages
and the charring of the floor, he was of the view that kerosene was the accelerant. The volume of kerosene used, according to his estimation, was about a pint.
BACKGROUND
6.
The
About two months prior to the incident, the Prisoner was injured during an argument which he had with a co-tenant.
case was brought to court and the co-tenant was fined one. thousand dollars and given a suspended sentence. The quarrel was about the use of insecticide by the Prisoner during the other tenants' meal time and about the Prisoner putting on the radio too loudly. A similar quarrel developed between the Prisoner and
another tenant some days prior to the arson incident. The Prisoner was not seen again on the premises after that quarrel.
DEFENCE
7.
The Prisoner gave evidence at the trial. He admitted that he started the fire but claimed he did so accidentally. He claimed that at about 1.00 a.m. on the 15th day of November, 1979, he was using lit matches to find his way to his cubicle and threw the burnt out matches on the floor as he went along. When he was inside his cubicle he saw some materials burning out in the corridor. As he turned around he kicked a can of petrol which he kept in his room for his watch-repairing business. Flames burst out instantaneously. He then packed up his belongings and left.
The jury clearly rejected his explanation by their unanimous guilty verdict.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.