The appellate court found that the evidence linking the appellant to the robbery was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, particularly regarding the recovery of the alleged stolen items and the credibility of the complainant's testimony. The court noted that the complainant was the only eyewitness, his evidence was uncorroborated, and his conduct after the alleged robbery was inconsistent with that of a genuine victim. The court also found that the trial magistrate erred in relying on unreliable evidence and failing to give due weight to the appellant's defence, including the possibility of a pre-existing grudge. In light of these factors, the court held that there was sufficient doubt as to whether the appellant committed the offence, and such doubt should have been resolved in his favour. The conviction was therefore unsafe and could not stand.