19771020 TZHC Arusha
Conviction was unlawful as it was based solely on uncorroborated testimony of a co-accused, contrary to established legal principles.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19771020 TZHC Arusha
- Parties
- Appellant: Abasi Mbaruku; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 20 October 1977
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment After Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed, conviction quashed, appellant released from custody
- Legal Topics
- Store Breaking, Stealing, Evidence, Accomplice Testimony
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abasi Mbaruku
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment After Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether conviction based solely on co-accused's uncorroborated testimony is lawful
- 2 Whether sentence imposed was justified
Ratio Decidendi
Conviction was unlawful as it was based solely on uncorroborated testimony of a co-accused, contrary to established legal principles.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed, conviction quashed, appellant released from custody
Orders
- Appellant released from custody unless otherwise lawfully held
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
i1CT: COUL Ci A1TAi AT ARUHA L?PEi:LATE JURISDICTION HIGH QOUP.T CRIMIiAL APPEAL NO. 117 OP 1975 ORIdINJ.L CELIJI1AL CASE.NO. 578 OF: 1973 OF THE DISTLY CC11T OP KOROGW DISTRICT AT IcOROGWE BEFORE: B S. iMil, Esq., District Magistrate ABASI MBARUKtJ APPELLANT (OigLia1 Accused) versus THEREPUBI1IC ..................... PLESPONDENT (Original osecutor) LflLT MNZAVA J. O.ti-.the 291'. Spomber 1977 I al1owed the appeal and ordered the reie.3 .f the appellant from custody and reserved my reasons fo..: o •otng. I now give my reasons: The accvs Abasi MbarLku, (and another person who was acquittoi ,vor jointly charged with storo-breaking and stealing c/s 2t(1 of the Penal Code. The appellant was convicted ai1c antaeod to five years imprisonment. This is aa apieo.l against both the conviction and the sentence imposed As rightJy iointod out by Mr. Njau, learned counsel for the Republic Gt.e ceiy evidence against the appellant was the testimony cf hes co-accused., Athuinan aka, the person who was accjuted, that the hoes he (co-aebused) was found selling were given te him by the appeliact. It was on the evidence of the co-aecusod that tho learr.ed trial magistrate based his findi that it was the apoliant who had broken into a store of Lwamsisi Prjydiary School in 3.12,73 and stole eighteen hoc:, rc:ortof the school. The leaane( vial magistrate grossly erred in law in convicting the app(liant on the evidenc of his co-accused that it was ho, (appellant), who had given him, (co-accused), the hoes he woe ound. selling. It is now an established principle of prar;tice that a self-exculatory statement of an accomplice shoulc not bc acted upon to he detriment of a co-accused u.lor;s ei.ch ox-culpatory staoinent is corrOborated by other indoende.et evidence in material particulars. See the decisions of this Court in SAIDI LLv, R. (1967) H.C,DG94 9 LAWRANCE JTU•Ji v R. 1967) Ti f. and SALUM s/a but few of the decisions rerJin; evidence of a co-acçusod. As there......./2 2 As there V: ~ e even the slightast corroboration of appellant s co aou::.•.;ft evidence that the hoes found in his possosion w..rc givcn to , him by Ghc apcilant, the conviction of tho aDjolianf of e . borebreakin c/s. 296(1) of the Penal Code was 1uerly boo. in lay, There wcrc th o icasons why the court, on 209.77, 'allowed the .a1 T'd ord rod tho roleaso,.o±' the accused . groin custody tu:lees he was otherwise lavrfully hold. Apparently the Republic did not support the conviction. S. ARUSI: 20/10/77. .. . . (N. NSN/hTi. . . ., . ,. .. . ... . S .5 . . . . . ,. A . ., .5 . '5