The court found that the identification of the appellant by the complainants was reliable as the robbery occurred in broad daylight, the robbers were unmasked, and the appellant was arrested near the scene shortly after the incident. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 was consistent and corroborated by the circumstances of arrest. The failure to call all arresting officers did not prejudice the appellant, as the essential facts of the arrest were established by PW3, whose evidence was unchallenged. The appellant did not pursue any genuine application to recall PW1, and his purported witness was himself, which the court found to be an attempt to mislead. The appellant's defence consisted only of stating his name and offering no rebuttal to the prosecution case, which the trial court properly considered. The appellate court concluded that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction and sentence.