The court found that while the offence of robbery with violence was committed, there was no evidence directly connecting the appellants to the crime. The complainant (PW3) did not identify his attackers, and there was no evidence of recent possession of the stolen items by the appellants. The prosecution's case was based on suspicion and circumstantial evidence, which did not meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The vastness of the compound, lack of torches, and adverse weather conditions further weakened the prosecution's case. The court held that suspicion alone, however strong, cannot form the basis of a conviction. Consequently, the convictions for robbery with violence and the alternative count of neglect to prevent a felony could not stand.