ABEL RENATUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (KIGOMA SUB-REGISTRY) AT KIGOMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11210 OF 2024 ABEL RENATUS APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of the District Court of Kakonko at Kakonko) (A. J. Kyamba, SRM) Dated 16th day of April 2024 In Economic Crimes Case No. 4 of 2023 JUDGMENT 22 & 22/07/2024 NKWABI, J.: The Appellant was charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for the offence of unlawful possession of firearm part contrary to section 20 (1) (a), (b) and (2) of the Firearms and ammunition Control Act, 2015 read together with paragraph 31 of the pt schedule to, and section 57 (1) and 60 (2) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act, Cap 200 R. E. 2022. The offence was allegedly committed by the appellant in Itumbiko village within Kakonko district which is within Kigoma region. It was alleged that 1 on 13 th day of July 2023 is when the appellant was found in possession of a barrel of a muzzle louder without a licence. The prosecution paraded a number of witnesses and tendered seven exhibits. The appellant was called on to enter his defence whereby he defended himself without calling any witness. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was found guilt as charged and was sentenced to serve 20 years imprisonment. The appellant was pained by the conviction and sentence. He lodged this appeal in this Court. When the appeal was called on for hearing, the appellant was represented by Mr. Dionis Sebugwao Lubango, learned advocate. The respondent was duly represented by Mr. Fortunatus Maricha, learned State Attorney. It was the strong argument of Mr. Lubango, in submission in chief, that the prosecution did not prove the case because, exhibit P. 6 has different narrations and its identification had difficulties in the trial Court. He elaborated at length that exhibit P.6 was identified as a piece of iron and there is a place was identified as a barrel of muzzle loader. There is a place here it is identified as a barrel of muzzle loading gun. There is a 2 place it is identified as a piece of iron and another place it is identified as firearm. While on another it is identified as iron metal with acid. In regard to the charge sheet, it was totally misleading, pressed Mr. Lubango. He further stated that the prosecution depended on that piece of evidence. Mr. Lubango argued that it brings an impression that the prosecution did not know what they were charging the appellant for. He prayed the Court be allowed the appeal. He also stated that all the grounds of appeal be adopted as part of their submission. Let the appellant be acquitted with any other relief this Court my deem just, pressed Mr. Lubango. Mr. Maricha, in reply submission, readily conceded the appeal, and all the grounds of appeal. He elaborated his stance that the exhibit was not identified by the necessary witnesses. He concluded his submission, in reply. There was no rejoinder submission from the counsel for the appellant. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties. I have also gone through the proceedings that is in the trial court's record. I find correct the complaint raised by the counsel for the appellant that the exhibit P. 6, which is the centre of the prosecution, 3 was not clearly identified by the witnesses of the respondent. The learned State Attorney who appeared for the respondent has conceded the appeal, and in my opinion rightly so. I do not find otherwise. Consequently, the appeal is found to be merited. It is allowed. I quash the judgment and set aside the orders of the district court. The appellant be released from prison unless he is held therein for other lawful cause(s). It is so ordered. DATED at KIGOMA this 22nd day of July 2024 . . ,-\ @a ~-( /_,-,l-, \ J. F. NKWABI JUDGE 4