had known the accused as a person he had seen at a distance in the Siteki town. The accused and this witness were not close acquaintances according to his testimony. Strangely, the witness says, later in his testimony, that he was able to recognise the person who fought with the deceased and stabbed him to be the accused person. He says he had known the person he saw fighting the deceased as a truck driver at Dyson and Lincoln. This aspect of the testimony given by Mr. Gamedze seems to contradict his testimony to the effect that he did not know the person who fought with the deceased and that he had never seen the person before this day. This apparent contradiction does not inspire a conviction in my mind that his testimony on this aspect of the matter can be relied upon. His evidence is clearly unsatisfactory. His testimony in implicating the accused as the person who stabbed and killed the deceased is for the above stated reason open to serious doubt.
Furthermore the surrounding circumstances during the fight and stabbing of the deceased, namely the state of the light, the mobility of the scene, and the degree of the prior acquaintance or knowledge the witness had of the culprit does not eliminate the reasonable possibility of error in the identification of the accused as the culprit. S V. MTHETHWA 1972 (3) SA 766(A), R V. MOKOENA, 1958 (2) SA 212 (T) @ 215, S V. MEHLAPE 1963 (2) SA 29. In S V. MEHLAPE supra the court made the following remarks in its analysis of the identification evidence in that case which remarks are apposite in the present case;
"In the circumstances of the present case there were three important facets of the evidence of the single witness, the complainant, as to the identity of the appellant as one of the three persons who robbed him. In the first he said he had often seen the appellant before. The value of this alleged prior knowledge of the man he subsequently recognised at the robbery remained entirely uninvestigated. The court did not know how often he had seen this man, or whether he had ever seen him close by or had ever spoken to him or anything at all about the opportunities of accurate observation of the appellants' face afforded on the prior occassions; he said that he recognised him by his face.