19830802 TZHC Mbeya
There was no evidence to implicate the appellants in the offence; mere presence or relationship to the principal accused is insufficient for conviction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19830802 TZHC Mbeya
- Parties
- Appellant: Amsongabrirl d/o Lusalbo; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 2 August 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; appellants to be released immediately.
- Legal Topics
- Shop Breaking, Stealing, Appeal, Evidence, Acquittal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Amsongabrirl d/o Lusalbo
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence to implicate the appellants in the offences of shop breaking and stealing
Ratio Decidendi
There was no evidence to implicate the appellants in the offence; mere presence or relationship to the principal accused is insufficient for conviction.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; appellants to be released immediately.
Orders
- Convictions quashed
- Sentences set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
t C- TiR HIGH COURT OF TTZIiNIA IhLLAT' iURSDICTION (Mbeya Registry CRILilNiL ir±-ItLL 110 .32 0p1981 C/F. Cr; A:2 of 1981 ORIGINJL CRflvaNiL CASH 140.157 OF 1980 OF Ta DISTRICT COURT OF MBOZI DISTRICT AT MBOZI Before: : L. Si.. Igonyani, District Magistrate. A41SONGABRIRL ). ............... ... ......................... ....... 'PIELLhNT I4D/O LUSALBO) VERSUS THEBEPUBLIC ................ ..................RESPONDENT CUARGE Shop ireaking and St.aling c/ss4296 (1) and 265 of the Pea] Code. JUDGr.IIhNT • The two appellants were jointly charged with five others for sI)ç- breq.ng and stealing. It was stated that during thL nght of 27/6,Q ers•brok•e.into the shop owned by the complainant (P1.6) and storarious iop goods to the value of Shs 36,984/=. Tins was o.one while the QO1p1E).1nant was asleep and did not iIenti; anybely. He reported to the Police and investigations were conducted. The inio :pui1ans weru netted and charged as above. In their de. nce tey denid that they took part in the breaking. Theywereconic -bed along thLir co-aacusuI (three of there were acquitbed.) and sentenced to seven rears aupris:mLient. As.su.beiitted by the learned State Attorney, there was no eviden to implicate the two appellants with the offence. The evidence against the first appellant was that he happened to be together with the first accud when the latter was selling a kitenge said to b4 one of the sto1n goods The first accuaed had admitted the repónsibi1ity and.aid thia 4pUan was not Concerned. As for the sccond appellant, she ia the wire of the ftrst.. accused.She was convicte. because the stolen goods we ou4 in. their house. She had told he court that the goods were. brought There by her lmsband (1st ac4ed) and she hth nothing to do with th was no evidenme to rofuti her dettce. I allow th appeals. 1, qah the appellants' conviction arde asS. tar sntL.ne they shou]4 be 4et at liberty immediately. At Mbeya, Ji 2ridugust. 1983 JTD(1.