19730510 TZHC Mwanza 1

C, ±*' IT TTlie 1iIF OOtJ rn IT-i iT; OF jr., llzlTI HI.GIL .CUiT' RI.IIlL4L PPL;L-lJO. 473 OF 1972 Original Criminal Case No. 726 of 1970 of the J is t rict Court b Ta'oora District at Taooa - 3efore J.P. Lipiki 9 £sq., S,h.M. USI s/c BJLL.J. • • , • . . , . . . , . . * ve'sus 'la 'IJSLIC. . . U- Charge: Stealing by Public servant c/SO. 270& 265 of the Penal Couc. JUJGDiILCNT. -. -iT T)'ilIT T.' .ppallant is convicted of 'Sta1ing byPib1ic Servant' onfour counts an is s -ntenc to tiira years iriprisuninent on cn c'aunt and to run concurrntly. d no opC]ls a C~,~ a iris t conviction and an enc The apoellant was at all iaterial times an .ssistent Pharmacist with Governaent Hosital at Tacora. On 27/8/70 one Gonzi Sitta (p. .3) was arresteu while in possession of soao drdgs dnd, 'Vhan questioneu by police na said the appellant sold. thom 'to him. Later appellant was charged for staalinp tnos d.rugs anu convicted and sentenced,. Now heappeals. 1 ,1ain grounds of appeal ar-a that Gonzi Sitta sou1u not have Dean believed. at all as ne was interested party anu tnat prosecution failed. to prove the case Qeyond all reasonaol ctoubts, and that conviction was against thew-aight ofevidence. dx'. ugaabamu for, tn appellant subrnittau that Ponzi Sitta was an untrustworthy witness ana thoroughiy unreliable and he should. not have been beliaveu at all. 118 said Sitta had an interest to save in that he wanted to have his sentence reduced as he was already convicted for 'ieceiving Stolán property' . i.e. the said drugs. J , , said testimony of 3itta as an accomplice was uncorroborated anu evidence a,duced cannot sustain conviction and appeal snould be alloweu. Mr. Mela the Senior State j.Ittornay said Gonzi Sitta was - the most important witness for the prosecution but conc0 .,, ,_, U that for many reaoons he should not have macn aeliaved by tent magistrate. Ho said becse of this iepublic did not support conviction. I have gone through the record caraf ally and tacre ic no do .Wt that Oonzi 3itta wa the most important witness bfor trial court and it iaas onlbrbn his avidanca conviction ann enteed against the . appellant.. But as both PIr, Pugarabamu and. Senior 3tote etto:liaj said Sitta was a : thoioughly unreliable witness ana his testimony before trial court is full of improbabilities and inconistencies. Beeiies ha was interested party and his uncoroborted evidence as. sccomplic is worti'iless. In believing him anu accepting his testimony as tretiaf'ai, ten larnod trial magistrate arrea. Prom evidence as is on record it cannot ;bi said tnat prosecution prove tiC case ocyond all reasohable doubts -against the appellant and it would cc most unsafe to allow the conviction to stand on such evid.enc. - - -- - - For these rasons ten 'pa 1 is alloied Convictions cie quashed, and sentences are. set aside on. all four counts. It is - - ordered that the .appe1ant be set free fortn--iith unlasa o ther.ise. legally -he.d. - - - -- - ----- a - - j; • 9tn i'd, 1973. a1ivr.d. in C urt on 10th say, 1973, i iuba 1 mbami for a p311nu nct 11.. for i3pLIb11ç. ..• .. . ...................... .- . . •. . •.,: .