N

IN TFE Fi(-H OCURT CF TA1IZA1IA I. T 00D0 'L APILT JUJ?.13'DICTION CRIiINAL AITAL TQ• 190 OF 1977 01,_IOIJ 'AL CFJiiTL!. JL 1':'7, N01 73 OF 1976 1. Mgone Hoya 2. Jackson LIteLa 3. M alina Icwala . . . J2e1 I aflt versus The Re ' i.biic , . • . • •• • • . . . . . • .. . • . . . . ..Re5Dondent Charge Robbery with violence c/s 286 and 285 of the PeaJ Coôe. /_LiSL N T / In the District court the thre apellsnts were cQnviced rob Jry i di v JO1fli I y 01 nec - d given 12J ('lifliLith sentence. L 1 ,ainst the .onicton they have O1ntJy t h i s ccu:"t. • On the material morn:Ln. P1.1.3 the complainant appears to have b.en rrazin 86 head of. cat:le and 22 goats when one II0Yi. ap:?roached him and, little i:.:nowing what mischief was afoot at the hack, he was suddenly set upon from behind and knocked to the ground by three pepie. They theii tied .bim up with a rope and blindfolded hje;. The medical report shows him as having sustained a laceration on the occipital. He eirntually managed to undo the iopo and rthovo the blind. All his livestock had howevor h'n driven away. ob'vioüsly by ROTh and the assailants. He claimed to have iden - ified the la;ter as the appeflants. It is however unliJoly that in the circumstaaces he gave he could really h?ve recognised his assailants. He re orted the incident to the viflagor who proco 'dad to. make an all-out search for the animals. On the next day, acéorc'ing to PW.2, PW..3 and P1M, they sighted some cattle in a forest and upon moving, nearer they saw HOYA and the three appellants, with whom they wore familiar, driving the livetock. They : h'td not heard of the theft of the complainant S livestock but something aroused thir suspicion that they nit have bean stolen: they saw then slash two hod of cattle to because the ground, presuma:ly / hay were too weak or tired to ke.p pace with the rest. Tue i.ietl;rs in tin-i saw thor and ran away. The wit,nossos raised an alar! -.i and drove the livestock to PW.6 the vUage he,d man. ihey wore then only 78 heac. 01 cat;lo and 20 goats. Foflowin the reort of the witneems the '- •... •- •-)- ' - 2- appellants were than arrestod but it would seen HCYA had since disappoered alt ogotho r, Each apppllant in a brief, unsworn state iont c1ain€, he had responded to the alarn ao had done the other villagers. In the end, he h-,d gone hone and had not bon arros :od until some days lator. They e :01: euggost, I think, that witnesses had not fl:j:jthen at th outset, hnce tho delay in arrcet:Lng then. They w.re however ci or - that the aipellants disappeared upon seeing then. Ahe mit or, it may be noted, A th. iri - witnesses gave evidence did not oere to suggosi they h14 resonded to the alarrri and I am clear they wore not tolling the truth when they nado the claim, - The three eye witneSses soon to havo focussed on the rustlers for a rrociably 0. long tine; mad bEing that familiar with the apoliant they could not poibly have mistaken them as the cattle rustlers, it is of some mIjAricant that the complainant himself had identified IIOYA, who was later identified by the other witnesses, ae being among the robbers. The convictions,I am:satisfied ,werc dosrvc-d and, accordingly, the joint appeal is dismissed in its entirety. P .I.. JOTHN • UDGE ,r'