I It was above ruling that the counsel for the prosecution appealed • against vide notice of appeal dated 24/6/13. He raised a lone ground of appeal to wit: Ij THE ERROR IN LAW "The learned trial magistrate erred in law when he held that the prosecuting witness number. I should not answer a question put to him in re-examination by the appellant's counsel which question is aimed at explaining the contradictions elicited during his cross examination by the respondent's counsel" Counsel did not state any particulars in support of the lone ground of appeal. (see 3 - 4 of the record) . It is imperative for me to state that I carefully searched for the criminal charge before the learned trial magistrate upon which the above proceedings were predicted, I could not find it in the record of appeal. However, I deduced the charge might be related to offence of assault occasioning harm and probably, stealing. My deduction is hinged on the evidence of PW1 and, of course, the PWl's petition to the commissioner of police dated 21/1/2009. ,..- . \'(7 ~~@ ; ~ . i / L '../ / I should think that in compiling records of appeal, all the relevant documents forming part of the proceedings ought to be included. This is to avoid a situation where the appellate court would be left to conjecture or surmise what the material facts are in the appeal. This is 7 I P ri i: ('