19811124 TZHC Mtwara

4 IN THE HIGH COURTQF TANZANIA 4 - AT MTWARA. APPELLATE JURISDICTION' '- HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL N0099 QF 1979 Original Criminal Case No.223 of . 1979 of the District Court of Massi Distri.c€ At Masasi Before A.Y. Kibona, Esq0,. District Magistr'at. ATHUMANI BAKARI MINJALE ........... APPtLLANT Versus THE REPUBLIC RESPONDENT CHARGE: 1st Count: UxUawful possession of Government trophy c/s 67(1) and 2 () of wildlife conservatIon Act No.12/1974 2nd Count: Being in possession of property suspected to have been stolen c/s 312 of the Penal Code 0 J UD G Ez M E N T MUSHI, J. - Athumani Bakari Minjale, the appellnt in this case, was charged with two conts. On the lstcount he was charged with unlawful possession of Government trophy c/s 67(1) and (2) of Wildlife conservation Act 0 Onthe 2ndcount he was charged with being in possession of property suspectedto have been stolen c/s 312 of the Penal Code. He was convicted on both counts and sentenced to three years and one year imprisonment respectively 0 He is appealing against the convictions and sentences. The particulars of the charge state that the appellant was detained under section 24 of C.P.C. This is not bone out by the evidence 0 The evidence is clear that PWJ. - D/CPL - Tanzania (I m not sure whether this is infact his name or his name may have been omittedand Tanzania is his nationality. The record is not cl- ear) went to the house of the appellant where he searched and found the alleged medicines and leopard skin. Apart from the evidence of the detective corporal, no other person gave evidence. The learned trial magistrate took for granted the alleged skin was leopard skin and the medicines were infact medicines. There should have been expert evidence regarding the identity of the alleged leopard skin and alleged medicines. Not everybody knows a leopard skin. At least a game officer or any other person who knows what a leopard skin is like should testify 0 0 ... 0/2 . -i-. Similarly with regard to the alieged.medicines,. a. medical practitioner should have been ca]4ed to state whether the alleged medicines were mecicines. In both counts therefore the..learned trial magistrate erred in accepting PW1's evidence. as expert evidence for the purposes. of identifying the allegedarticles. Disregarding the errônously admitted evidence there was no other evidence to support the charge. The appellant was accordingly wrongly convicted0 The appeal is allowed 0 Conviction is quashed and the sentence is set aside0 Th' appellant must be set, at . liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held0 N01.Mu I Judge 24,11.81 T•Si 1 H St4)1 : - j- ,.. -..'., . : '-• 4-: ..; -- k ..r- - •