19690518 TZHC Dar es salaam

Criminal Form No. 33 (Approved by the High Court Judgment or Order on Appeal (s. 320) under Section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Code).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT DAR ES SALAAM

APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRmwAL APPEAL No ........ 4. ........... o 19.. Original Criminal Case No ............. .. ...................... of 19. the District Court of District at before....... L. ................. Esq., Resident Magistrate/Di 1t. Appellant (Originai Accused) versus THEREPUBLIC .......................................................................................... Respondent (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE: Being in poisession of stock suspected of having been stolen contrary to section 5(1) of the Stock Theft Ordinance, Cap. 422 of the Laws. JUDGMENT/1WR I&KAE, Ag. J. — The Dodoxia District Court convicted the appellant of being In possession of cattle suspecttd of having been stolen., and sentenced him to two years end twenty tour strokes. Evidence was adduced to the effect that on the 24th of June 1969 a police constable attached to the Dodoa Regton Stock Theft Prevention Unit was led by the appellant to a grazing ground where he found a herd of cattle. He discovered that four head of cattle had fresh Identification mrks. Closer examination by the police officer revealed that the cattle had also older tdentiticatieii urks. The appellant was arrested, apparently without being asked to explain how the cattle came to be there and without being told why be was suspected of having stolen then. P.L2 Suibeli Kayeya a P Dam 10224/12-65160m/4up

I J E gave evidence that he Is the appeilants neighbour, and that when he was released from prison in January 1969 he found the appellant with seven head of cattle, four fully gron and three were calves.. In May 1969 the appellant Increased his flock by three beasts. P..ti3 Edward Chingongwe, a cell leader, simply said that he looked after the appeliants seventeen head of cattle in 1968 and did not see the appellant's cattle in 19694 The appellant explained that some of the cattle were given to him as dowry when his sister got married.. The appellant called one Raraadhani Songoro, Who said he did not know that the fcnw head of cattle belonged to the appellant but be knew the appellant owned some cattle.. On this evidence the learned trial magistrate convicted the appellant, and it is no wonder, that the Republic did not wish to support the conviction. The learned magistrate observed that the appellant did not give ry explanation when be was apprehended in June 1969 1, but then, according to the evidence on record, he was never asked for one.. His explanation to the court does not seem ureasmable. Besides, it is not clear from the evidence what are the circumstances which may reasonably Icad to the belief that such stock has been stolent 1, which is one of the regnirenzits for this offence.. Admittedly the cell leader who said he looked after the appelisnt!s cattle said he did

not know those fcmr, but he looked after them in 1968. June 1969 clearly gave time enough for the appellant to acquire the suspected cattle as dowry for his sisters urriage, as he alleges. The guilt of the appellant was not established, ' Accordingly I allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence and order. The appellant should forthwith be released and set at liberty unless for some other lawful reason he is held.. Delivered in Court at Dar es Salaam this 18th day of May, 1989 (Sgd.) L. M. MAKME.

ACTING JUDGL