N
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANUA AT TABORA APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.229 OF 176 (Cf. Cr. App,,230/76) (PC) ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NOd5 of 1975 Sikonge Cr. Appea. No.14/75 of the District Court of Tabora b±strict at Tabora - B. I. D. MEGETA, D.M.) SiiIDI uzii...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- N
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1975
- 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.
No structured case brief is available yet for this judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANUA AT TABORA APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.229 OF 176 (Cf. Cr. App,,230/76) (PC) ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NOd5 of 1975 Sikonge Cr. Appea. No.14/75 of the District Court of Tabora b±strict at Tabora - B. I. D. MEGETA, D.M.) SiiIDI uzii ............................................ APPELL1NT (Original Accused) versus THE REPIJEIC ••a a. ................................ 6.... RESPONDENT (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE: Cattle theft c/s 268 & and 265 of the Penal Code. J U D GM E.N..T SISYAJ. - The two appellants and a third person who did not appeal were convicted by the Primary Court, Sikonge, of cattle theft and were each sentenced to the statutory minimum of fIve years imprisonment. Their appeals to the District Court were dismissed. They are now appealing to this court and their appeals are consolidated. The established facts show that thirty six heads of cattle belonging to the complainant were stolen from their 'Boma' on the night of 30/11/74. on 2/12/74 as a result of a follow up all the animals were recovered in the bush about seventy miles away from the scene of the crime. The two appellants and the other, person whom,'as aforesaid, did not appeal were found grazing them. When cornered the appellants told their captors that they, e.i. the appellants, were on their way to the house of their relative, oe one Lata, which was nearby. The said captors, one of whom was Amani Mrisho (P.w.3), then escorted the appellants to the said Lata's house. Lata himself who, incidentally did not testify at the trial 7 was not available at his house. However his wife and his daughter—in—law, one Holo d/o Maganga (P.W.4) were present. In the presence of Ainani (P.w.3) and Hole (P.w.4) Lata's wife denied that the appeilant's were related to Lata. - 4 ...'./2 The