The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the offence of robbery with violence beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's explanation for possessing Kshs.35,000 was implausible and appeared manufactured. There was no credible evidence that theft occurred, as no witness saw the appellants steal money from the complainant. Contradictions existed between prosecution witnesses regarding the number of attackers and the use of weapons. The charge sheet did not specify the weapon used, and the complainant's testimony was vague on this point. The evidence suggested a fight rather than a robbery, with no clear mens rea for theft. The 2nd appellant was found to be a bystander. The essential ingredients of robbery with violence were not established, rendering the conviction unsafe and the sentence unlawful.