19760827 TZHC Arusha

IN THt HIGU ATLRU31'. TANZANIA

ELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIhIFAL JL2EAL NO. 112 OF : 1974 ORIGINAL QRILiAL CASE iTO. .4 OF 1974 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROLmO DISTRICT AT i•(tJIJ BEFORE: N. TUZgRO, Esq., District LIagistrate ACHIBOLDANSELIMU ................... APPELLANT (Original Accused) versus THEREPUBLIC .......... ..............RESPONDENT (Original Prosecutor) JUDGI lENT J OlTATI-1 ill J. The appellant was convicted of one count of causing bodily injury throngh cai'e1css driving and anether of failing to report an accident, hs•bin 1g offonces under sections 42(1) (c) nd 57, 27:;spcctiv01, of the Road Traffic Act. He was sentenced to :;s.1,OOO or . 12 months' ieprisoneent and s.2000 or 4 nonths' inprioneic.t, rospectivcly. Clearly the conviction of causing bodily injury through careless driving is insupportable, notwithstanding that the appellant gave no evidence and called non • All the facts showed was thet the c:,nplainnt driving a motor cycle hit a vehicle being driven by the appellant thereby sustaining an injury. Nothing was adduced to indicate the appellant had in any war been careless or negligent. All indications wore on the other hand that the conplainant was hins elf to blanc for the accident. Accodingl the ccnviction is uashod. This is however of little consolation to the appellant for, after failing to raise th fine, itself very unduly severe, ho was taken to prison and has since

served the scntonc. Technically, the appel:Lnt had a duty to report the accident at the noaras olicc station witnin 12 hours • It seems he took the complaincmt to , nearby dispensary. From f, there ho would have taken him to a hospital in that area but for the complainant saying he would be content to be taken hone which the acpollant did. \hilo such conduct maybe considered oxecaplaryho was nevertheless by law bound to rcport the incident and in my judgment the conviction on this count was proper. Accordingly, the appeal in this respect is dismissed. The sentence. however too harsh. In regard to this, as in the other, count, tnc learned district magistrate seems to have laboured under the inprss1oi1 that he had no discretion to pass soitencs below tho i:iiniin proscribed in section 63 of the Act. As has often been reminded, however, the courts in such cases have a discretion, .for reasons to be shown, to pass lesser sentences than the minima.. It . ...••.

VV J ft# • b : It would por tht initi.lir thc ppollnt in. n attonpt to riso th, finos dopositod ti sui of ts;200 *ith the court. If ths5t bo oorrcct it is ordërocl this floflOy be roturnod to hioi. V • • .... . V S (2. M. JOLTHijT) V JUDGE. • V JudV1ont doliiroiod in oçon Court a irusha this 27th day of Lugust 1976. V IT, JOIT.'CTLLJ) iJ/1'IT. JUDGVL.