The appellant was convicted of being in possession of a motor vehicle reasonably suspected of having been stolen. When asked by the police to explain his possession he said he had bought it at an auction; in court, in an unsworn statement, he gave a different explanation. 5 Neither explanation explained the fact that the engine had been changed and its number tampered with.
Held:
(i) Under s. 319 of the Penal Code the onus is upon the accused to furnish an explanation which satisfies the court.
(ii) The 10 onus is discharged if the explanation is one which, though it might not necessarily be true, might reasonably be true.
