19741115 TZCA Dar es Salaam2

\ I

THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT DAR ES SALAAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NOo 146 OF 1974 Original Criminal Case No .. 1U6 of 1974 of the District Court of Morogoro B1strict at Morogoro before NoI .. N.. Munuo, Es~.. , Resident Magistrate ABDALLAH MUSSA e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ o c o APPELLANT versus THE REPUBLIC O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o·o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O RESPONDENT CHARGE: Stealing from the person of another c/s a69(a) of the Penal Code.,

JUDGMENT SAIDI, C.. J .. 'r This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Resident Magistrate of the District Court of Morogoro who found the appellant guilty of stealing from the Person of Another c/s Z'69(a) of the Penal Code and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment. The facts of the case seem to be brief and simpleo On 28th February, 1974 at 10 p.m .. 7 the complainant, Ibrahim Mwakawago (PoW.1),. cr1.member of the T.. P .. D.. F .. 7 stepped out of the train when it stopped . at Morogoro Railway Station., He was holding three bags in hands .. As soon as he was about to reach the ground, the appellant, who was in a group of six people standing near the Railway line, snatched one of the bags from him and threw it to one of the other five persons .. The complainant stated in his evidence that he tried to chase the person to whom the bag was thro~n but the appellant prevented him by holding him from behind.. However with the assistance of the other persons who were _at the Railway Station 7 he managed to chase the appellant and'arrest him .. The other five men could not be traced and the bag which "Was snatched from Ibrahim's hand was also not traced .. In defence, the appellant made a very short unsworn statement which is as follows:- ."I did not steal from the complainant .. I had come to the station and the person alleged I had stolen from him, but I denied .. The

complaina:nt then assaulted me. I was put in custody and charged.," Although no other person who witnessed the event was called by the prosecution e:x:cept a policeman:.1(1?~ W~ 2) who \-las attracted by the crown surrounding the appellant after he had been arrested by the complainan:t .. I tend to agree with the learned trial ••• 2 magistrate that the appellant was properly identified as the person who had snatched the hand bag from the complainant., The cromplainant was positive in his evidence that he did not lose sight of the appellant when he was chasing him till he actually caught him a n d . ~ back to the Railway Stationo The complainant and the appellant were strangers to one another. There was no reason why the complainant should falsely implicate the appellanto In ground three of his petition, the complainant is querrying as to why no other eye witness was then called by the prosecution - as the appellant had insisted that there were many other persons who had assisted him in chasing and arresting the thief., It is, however, not always possible to get many witnesses in a situation like this. Most of the people who were at the Railway Station would have been on transit a!ld it would not be easy i to trace themo Like the learned trial magistrate, I am satisfied that the charge~ against the accused was proved beyond all reasonable doubt and I dismiss this appeal in its entirety. D:-elivered in Court at Dar ss Salaam this 1s-il...1day of November, 19740 (A,. Saidi)

CHIEF JUSTICE