6 [12] Mr Luke Krishna’s eye-witness testimony regarding the events at the post office placed the appellant at the scene of the robbery. He had been employed at the post office at the time of the robbery. He attended an identification parade at the police station on 20 May 1998, three and a half months after the incident, where he identified the appellant, from a line-up of 11 persons, as one of two persons who had participated in the robbery. He testified that the appellant entered the post office with one other person who stood at the door. He himself was behind the counter. The appellant was well-spoken and was wearing a blue cap, jacket and pants. The appellant approached him and asked him for five stamps. He then produced a firearm and demanded money, which had been delivered to the post office for the payment of pensions. At this stage the appellant was facing him. Krishna then went to the back of the post office to fetch the money, which was in a metal box. He returned and handed the box containing the money to the appellant. The appellant asked for more money and Krishna returned with two other boxes, but these were empty. The appellant then pointed his firearm at Krishna’s assistant Mr Yugan Reddy, who was also behind the counter, and ordered him to hand over the money that was in the drawer. Reddy complied by throwing the bundled money at the appellant. The appellant and his accomplice then left with the money. The incident lasted approximately five minutes. [13] The appellant confirmed that Krishna had identified him at the identification parade. But he denied that he had been one of the robbers. He claimed that Krishna was able to identify him at the parade only because he had seen him at the police station in the charge office on an earlier occasion. The learned magistrate rejected this claim, with good reason. The identification parade, however, had several unsatisfactory features; to mention a few: the appellant was denied the presence of his