The appellate court found that the time between the robberies and the appellant's arrest was too short for the accused to have moved from the scene to the place of arrest and be found in possession of the stolen goods. The court noted that none of the witnesses positively identified the appellant as one of the attackers, and the evidence relied upon by the trial court to invoke the doctrine of recent possession was insufficient and riddled with contradictions. The court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish a satisfactory account linking the appellant to the stolen property, and the contradictions in the evidence created reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Consequently, the court held that the conviction was unsafe and allowed the appeal, ordering the appellant's release unless otherwise lawfully held.