19900607 TZHC Mbeya

~'~ . . IN ·THE HiGH 'COURT OF TANZANIA ·_I

AT MBEYA . RE¥XS10NAL . .J'uRISDICTION. .. ,. '(lViB,EYA REGISTRY) >".,· HIGH. COURT CRIMINAL RE,YISION NO. 71, OF 1988 (:ORIGINAL CRIMINAL .CASE. NO~l62 OF I.987. OF .• :_J_;.•·:, :· -_. THE n:r:~TRICT cbURT OF NJoM·BE DISTRI cT AT

NJOIVIBE

THE REPUBLIC Versus _ 1 j'..: . · ·. ·_.···4cc, · J_U]!f..~·: MA,;YEtlBA&i3 I O'r~HERS · -~ ; ' . · ... : ." 'lit · ·." , :· ; . .. . - .· _ ·. ·,., .. -JUDGMENT···· . . t . IN REVISION. , Four P.ers;~-~-~ n~mely Shim. Mudi,. Pabaya -N-!i'ot'a, · Juma···M~;remba a· l • : • I •;,''<I ~•. \ . • ; · '.bubakari Shawa were jointly charged with burt(l:~ry and ~:;tealing c/'·, .. ) . \. , When the .ch~rge . .- ' : was. , .~ re.ad t.9; ' ,hemr . , . . .. .- ·I' .· ,.· .· -1he first $.nd':,seoond accused pleaded guilty to steal~ng and were · \ . 1entenced· to ··12 ·month~ 1 imprisociJient • A full trial was . then. conducterl. . i i_n re·spect' of:··the bu±gl~ry cha~i&e- and in resp_::ct of ~he 3rd and 4th accused,- persbhs~· :At. tne end of th-, trial the 1st and 2nd accus~d persons were convicted as charged. and sentenced to 4 years imprisonmer for rurglary~~ . _T4~ 3:r.d accused pe-rson was. foi.md gu.1lt'y ·of burglary an~ --~te.alin_~ ·~.~-d '-~~~tep?ed to 4 ye·ars and ·1.-·yei1r· impr'isorutient :; · : '-,\. ,. res;pec,tively whil~ . ~he . fourth ..acc~.ed :was ·found: not· gui'lty of burg:i.arJ . .. . ~ . ,·, . . .:_crq:d ~~:e~J.ing. but pf. d13stroying ~vidence c/s J ~9 of thl ··:eenal Code·: an .. ... ·· o1fence wh~-ch he h.ad_ .not _be.en · cri.arged- with~ . -·Wb.e1:i"·the record,.wa.s put ·to my br:~-:t°htr judge Hono~able Mr·; Justice' ;:fi._ Mwaikas'u. ·he. minuted

thus·r; -.,.,4 "After going through .the re co.rd of.. the lower court I am of the view. that: . .. . .... ··-. .... - ...,. .. (i) Th~. se_3:1ten~e impo~ed o:nt_h~ ist ~nd. 2nd accusea.s. :'ol!- the ... 1st count:' 1s below the prescribed minimum as .the value~ of the . prgperty fo'tmd to. have been :stc/J..en was wefl . over. shs.5p000o t . ' . . '·: . ·:f I ; (if) ~her~ ·was insJffiJ-terit evici"ence to found · the· ¢onyicti"o"hs o·f the 3.rd ·.and 4th accused personso" Regarding ·the. first point raised in the learned ·Judge.' s minute . . . } .... :.:...-:..:~~·--· ~:.:L.: . . ~.::. . he 'rrnist->be rt,~:fk-en: ,·to. :have been ;re.-ferning \ •- . ito\ . . . ! 5:( d) of the Mininrum . . s.•.... !· .r_. ~-. .. :. . ·f, .. ·. . ·.: ..• .:re·ntences ·Act: whi:ch: states~ I 0 I •...,. . ., . ' anY . ''Where person is eonvlo~~d of an o·ffence' specified in the flr,Bt Schedule "l:O th.ts Act and the «)urt is satisfied that the-value of the property obtained by the.offender in tp.e.: pourse of the })ommission of the offence,: or which he ~tte~pt.ed to so obtain,'-~-~-· in ·~ases ·failing under , S-'' 3 of s, fr 'of', .th~ 'I?re<:v~nt,ion of Corrup.tion. A.ct 1971,. \;. the ·.value of the advan:ta§fa, acqepted, gi v:e~n,. solicited '·. offered •o:r ..pro)llised exceeds. the sum of five thousand· . ,.., . :'• · · ·· ·. .i · r· .~· . ·.. . · shillings, the court shall sentence such

person to imprisoru·L:nt 'f'or a. term: riot -l:e·s·s than: five· yea:r;s.•l'.. . 1 .·, As · far. as the: ..first and second accused are concerned the offe: ,:P, , ,., . . ·.~ ·. . , ~ , • ; \ -... ,., r, ' >f burglary for whifh .t~ey ,w?-r,e_;tonvicted,:·,?.:1~ .s~ntenced to 4 years . . . ·.' . . ~ ' ,• . . .. . imprisonment ought to have attr~?:t;ed. a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment since the-property they obtained in the course of . ·- .. committing ,. that offence was worth 55,000·shs. An appropriate order will .be. made at the end of this judgment o -..•.. .. ·~.. As regards the 3rd accused person he was found.guilty of burglar:· ":··. ~-{- .. and stealing '·and sei-1tenced to concurrent terms of 4 years and 1 year . ~ . respectivelye · Whereas the evidene-e· on record showed that the first and seclond ac~uset'·had bee":t:1 liviz.g in the house which was burgled and they readily admi-tted . ·t-he·stealint3 there·was no,.e-vi.dence, to show .•, that ·the .JQ?d _. acc:used also .live.d there. . Tu.fact .. . . . . . . the evidence of '. Samwel 1\/Ihewa (PWl) showed tha,t upon being .arrested the first and )I., .•· •• •• • second accused stated that they had stolen the goods and sold a mr ~ -. ./3 " -' - j - ' to the 3rd accused. . •, '.: ,· Tgere . ·was also' evi·dence fX-:orn 'Godfrey Wimbo CPW;,, 1 . • • • 4f • ,·, , • t_hal ~ubsequentiy,::,on :~h:e- 7/8/87 ,the

3rd accusea:·:sold .the rnatress for 1 shs.2,500/-= in the pr~sence -Qf many people one of whom was Joseph. - ... . ... , ~ .: ~ .~ .. . Soffer from provin8 that the 3rd accused partici.p~ted in the 1 ;awago: • ·. l \urglary and theft_. the· pros_e·cl:ttic11 did not even prove ·that he had ,. C ,. .·. knowledge f actual o'.;r coris~ruct{ve that the matress was stolen: • \_ ' I '. • ) • .. _:• , • Hfs conduct in .se.1.l~n-g, the matres_s in the presence of many people without hiding was certainly not that expected :r;rom a gu.il t;y- person., The convictions against the 3rd accused were ther:-e·.fo.I;'e, not supported 1;,y the evidence on the record -~ and _as conceded, . by : lVIiss ... Mwai . tereke, learled . State Attorney,· _tho· convicti'ons should be quashed: t3n_d:. _the accused set free. . ,,;, f ' .... I t , . As· reg_ards 1 the fourth_ aq_cusod per?:On the only evidence against hir,_ was that his house was _searched -and in it was found a jpe aker which . . ---- ..-· t . . appeared -J:;9 ha_Vl!r J:~een tempered with in 1,hat a callo·-- tape haoc_ been '>. pasted OJ:l it to hold a. piece of~ clothe that. was_- put ori .,it.~-- , ,Th$., , .. !: ,-. • • f ~ • • ~ • • • • ! •· I ' _;_,, • • ,; '.. : • ·, • \r learned _tri~fr µia[s}strate reasoned out thus: • ' ,.J. •. }'It m.:,w- be; ~c?epted_ thn.t the 4~h accuse·d in. ~uyii~, tha i ~i~s·;'ciid ·_ . no;t kno~ that they

were stolen propert,ie 9 butL_th~ time he -· · :11. • . ~ '_' .· .. . • : -, : .• . .· . . . . came io' kn9w ,that tho speaker t waf:: . nec9-ed . arid that it may:' .. ·be :reql:iired•in:,t;h~ futu~ as' e\i-ie.Gri'cop he _de:c_.i,d.'~q. 'to t_ry :· tb destroy thcef evidence;. What I· :J311 now conclude· ·.is • t_h~t -t_he 4t.h accused'. s act only CL.1ounted to the· destruc{Lon of,: evidEL1.ce o 11 · . ~- ....., . Wi tb. due respeq_t_ to ~,the lecrned trial E1cicistrate, all the evidence .. •··~ . . : '." • < ' that was on record pointed to the fact that he had bought the speaker. - ., ,• • •I- • • • at Songea from th~ 1st and 2nd accused. ·but there was no effort· ori the- • . t • '~ . ., • ' . .- • • part of the pros·ecution to shc·w that he knew or ought to have knowri . . , -, j· . . -. . .·· · . l that it_ wa~ stol~~.,~~f.d there• was no··· ?'V_i .~once tq. ~how. that the: c~l:lo tape and piece of clothef~d been affixed on the speaker ry ~he 4th • . ·1,·~c;' • accused rather- ~n~\.t•':ifthe self confessed thieves - .i.e •.. ,the _fi~i;:it and second aqcusJ9,~- _,- .,. .: "" I:~ ~ . • -~·· '- · ·even wors,o Wh a t is · .1· s t. hat· even 1· f i··.t had ·bee.n ·provec.i. J . ' :-_. .. •-~, : /' . . . ~ .. :;_; . . the 4th accused.who tempered with the speaker the learned trial ' . ·' , ,. .. ' ·,,. . . '· _, magistrate c~uld ~ot 'iawfu'.liy substitute· a conviction for the

offe:frc .:· ·, . ;· ' 1.:: ', ... -;:_' .··.!:·_., _.. : . . . : '- t . of destroying. evidence because of the following reasons: (1) The offenc~ of destFoying evidence under. s. 109 of· the Penal Code is defined to require two important ,. ingre'dients to be proved '· ,·' J" (a) <Knowledge that ,the: thing 'destroyed iriay be re qui rod. in evidence in a judicial :Prote:e·ding. · (b). Wilful destruction with.intent to prevent use in evidence. In this case there was no evidence to show that the 4th accused.knew that the ·speaker could ·be requtred . .; _ in evidence o (2) Though -the offence of destroying evidence is minor to both burglary and theft it is not cogm.ate,to any of the two. In other words it is not J)os·si ble<to arrive at the offence of destroying evidence by the process; .of ..4--µ1t:r-action from • ~he. ing~edients that constitute burglaty < I• the ft,\ ,..._,. ·:°: • ~ ' ' ::~r • In the result the sentence of 4 years imposed on the 1st and . > .. . . ,_ ~ . 2nd accused for the offence of bu,rglary is se~ ,aside for being ilRg, ·-~ A .sentence of 5 yearsimprisonment'is substituted. The sentence_ of year imprisonment for the count . of th2ft ·.. .· .. remains undisturbed. ·., . ie:n:tenn, s . . : . . to run ·concurrently. Furthermore the con-yict:ion~ again~t the 3rd ace.used r1re · quashed and sentences sei · oside; He should be set free at once unless he is otherwise legally detained.,. Finally ,_the convi('tittr. against the 4th accused is quashed 8nd \he sentence , of fine of 5,0~J shs~ imposed on him is set aside. The',:fi: e should be refunded to him,., JUDGI'J 7th. June, 1990 .. .... Judgment Delivered in the presence of Mr. Na~}l S.~te Attqr.ney. · ' , ' ~ L,J,i~UA 7f6/90