N

J. . •..,,., j DJ THE HIGH CvUHT vF TANZM!IA AT MlJi\NZJ\. J,PPELLi,TE JU!IISDICTION HIGH CCUf;.T CRIMIN/,L Ai.'PEJ..,.L NO. 106 OF 1980 cf Cr. ~pp. No. 116/80 ORIGINj,L CHii\IN/,L Cl,::iE NO. 396 uF 1979 UF 'I'HC DISTEICT CuURT CJF GEITA DL,Tr~ICT l,T Gl:ITi, i~~;;f,'o;-m: L. f3. K,:,LEGEYi,, Esq•, : ;JI;.,TFIC:T r~ ...GI3TRi,TE MU J,\ NCHD13I ooooooooooooooooooooooooooaoooci versus ooooooooooco~ooooocioeooooooooo• Rl:~Si'ONJENT JUDGMENT MUNYEru,, J., - The two apriellants, both of them i.'olice , Const.;i:)le:s were convicted of rob:x~ry r.md 3t.mt21,ced to 7 yev.rs imprisonment. The facts as found by the trial court were tho.t the:! two appellants were posted tu Jukoli Folice i.'ost. Jn 13/10/79 one Lubango Fun<Ji:ifun0a · (PU. 3) was on his way to ,:1 villugc called Wigo to huy cattle. He lwd shs .. s,oo0/- for the )Urposc. When he rirrived nt n )l2ce culled Nyaruyeye he WC!s stop:-,ed by the two apnellants. They declared "t;hilt they 1-wr(i I'olicemcm. Thf~Y ordered Fun0cifunq., ( i'H. 3) to surrc:Y)cr all cC\i,h h<:.: hc1ct. Hhen he showed n.:luct::::incc the 2nd a:>n~~llnnt who was nrmcd with a pistol senrchcJ the witness and took out shs. s,oou/-. At the s~me time c1 motor cycle arrived there from Gcib::i v.rith two people on it, Ch<'rles Ramadhan (P!·J.l) and Ibnzu 3elcmnni ( ~-1,;. 2). Th(~ two aprH~ll,1nts ordered the people on the motur cycle to stop. Th<iy did so. The: appellants agc1in declnred themselves to~~ Jolic~mcn, The 2nd anpellant se~rchcd Cho.rl0s (H·J.l) ,:-ind took shs. 15,000/-. I-ieanwhile Funo,,fungo. ( PW.3) hc::d munaged to escape. He went to th2 village and sou11dcd an c1lnrm. People joined him to the scene but they could do nothing ,~s the -"lf)pcdlunts had a gun. Th~ victims (rw.1 -1nc1 VU.3) want away. On 14/10/79 they reported t~0 matter to Police St □ ~ion und invcstigotions commenced. fin;-\lly the two a1Y1ellants were ::i.rr-2stcc.l and charc)ed. In i:heir defence they denied the ~llcgations saying that the witnesses were cooking up the story in order to get them (appellants) jnilcd. The reason for this wus thc1t the appellants were arresting illegal gold dealers so they were lhated. The frial court found thnt the prosecution had proved their case beyond n:!ason,,ble doubts and convictod the a,pcllants. They appealed and both engaged counsels• Both counsels argued at length. Their main contention was that tht.: first three witnesses (?~/ 0 1, .i?Wo2, i:'l"J.3) gave contradictory testimony ::nd should not have been believed 0 That the id0,1.ti:cicat_ion pnrade in which the n~1pell~nts were identified w:.is L·rC!qulurly conducted and its results should hnve been rejected. The counsel for the Republic argued that the contr~<icti0ns in the evidence wer2 minor ~nd did not go to tho root. That on the whole then,) was enough evidence to found the il.~?ellant's conviction. The first contradietion on which the counsels cc:ipi taliscd was the elate of the robhery. It was s □ id th □ t it was on Friday 13/10/79. Thfi diary showed thut the 13/10/79 was n Saturday. One of the witnesses -(2W.3) said the appell~nts ..:obbccl him on Fridc1y 12~0/79 0 The couns~ls argued that if the rob;,ery took rlace on Saturdny 13/10/79 this did not involve the appellants since th~y were snid to have committed t 1 ~ crime on a Friday whieh was on 12/10/790 The learned counsel for the Re ·ublic submi tto~ that · the '.-;i tr1L,sscs made mistakes Hh~;1 th:.:iy referred to ,U/lD/79 as a F:riclc1y insteod of Saturday • . ... ·1.i ,, J