The court found that the identification of the appellant was not positive, as the circumstances under which the complainant claimed to have identified the appellant (moonlight) were not sufficiently detailed regarding intensity, duration, or quality. The evidence of the recovered bicycle was of no evidential value due to its altered state. In the absence of other direct or circumstantial evidence pointing to the appellant's guilt, the court held that the conviction could not be safely accepted as being free from the possibility of error. The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and the sentence set aside.