19700303 TZHC Mwanza2

03UTWt0 O. 101)10 Ut ponpod a oAou oiot 'wrE ° : 'noxna uotqJo'ttquDp OL UD ;t ro quos roi.ou 0.1DM suircI -ro2'ut; ST7 Douts Pu'e swroy M.1ptfltM sj TVa squtrdqwn 01M OrDqTT U2 T 9''d 0OU0)TâD Ut ST t OOUtS. - 2tfl. UcT 2 ruç oonb I pu2 punoa9 ot. uo p09n002 i.oq p;qtnbo3 q.rttOO 1DM0 C1 tflO0 IM0T 0Tfl Ut 9'j OLfl. SM UO0tIdUJ0O .xo; -a -aoxna otq oq ou DiDbi trnA SsrxI ;o surdqwn. 3t 9 •DdcL stt. Ut quopuodsor ou. st tzi 'tMs WtTJ Ifl0O .1OMOI DLfl. u posnoo' PU o. jo sutidqumtq. c o. ro -iquopt orot swxoJ I9Mxptn.TM Dtfl. U0 sutxdqurntjq. otq porodor noxn ou. •uosirsdwoo ro; s ij nron-Ia uotq.otJtuop oq. uoS 0.10Msqutzdroutj SpDSfl003 014g. Ot. pUS swroj M1pT4tM onq CLUT •soouoqoxd osT1 -/oois oq.. ?US JO SqUttOO oMq. Rq T)0M0110J 010M D10J Jo sqtfl-i09 Okt o =/00t7 Jo quowC2d oKI. DD1MOU0T0 oq. SW.103 Tlet4 i0j nqqTjj p2O Dt. UO p0qu.1d-qumtfl. Puli 6t°i oo sr 0TSU2N ;c a0P T 011 TLMOOO' ot sodjI t.toqs o. 5.?utroctxnd r su.xor puewo uo oi. 0)1OI rDUtID)O. 1DU3 T.Ut0C DU O. OODTT 01DM IDDSflOOS OMO. Dt, UOD /OO 30 SWxOJ MpTfl.TM 0tT. pDUlDOtzDO 1DIOJ JO SO.tZtt0O CL4 DtTj oouoqord os - 3: Sq couow utut.qo jo Squnoo 0Mg. PUS jC ao 2 aoj Jo sil unco OM. qqtii 1odds stt. ut .uopttodsoH MIT pus Txn 00 IDMOT ou. ut T posnoos 015:311 1-5OJ Dt. JO uo flOOfC.1CL ot. UT ponsoi uot t1.sozuT tJ uoq.soAut OL. POT40un2l 0tSUS T -j DOT I OX Dtfl. pUS WS[t Sc) .ISr 'JJ0q DOJJQ .S0j puo U0.SDAUT 101 W -j~-, Tas SD a2r 01. U0S 010M SU0t1.OflrUt U5 ioorT ttt p0.10Ao0stp 01DM q.tm000' sssods UO SISMSlptfltM-IDAO DT posnoos - .1DS2J DT q WTU .103 pO1.OtdthOO 010M Solq 10S SWI03 ISMSXP 1.3Od -qqtM stt 1.ut.1d-qwn7q. o. posn pus uosrod OTWD T us T Dq .xoj Rl.T T TqTsucdsoa pouop OH un000a sii uo SSM5.1ptTM-10A0 qnOClO pDuoT1.sonb pus ooçoj oVqpo.osquoo 6961 UT 3DM D tqoltsj T1t TTT4-s sLm qt qst. ut PT04. ou P L VO :~ 00q sssj sit 01. pouodc1st pDt St(M .1oqJ3 .SO-J D. )SD 0 1. 1.ttOM 'posdsp pst ow-q. 3 UOT 1rsnsrttm trs q'2. uTpuTJ Ir4JD 'oqsp 1oq.S D , OH -TqoaT -0y oq. uotSStWsuDq. 1DMuO 103 .15511 1.S0,T :)Ilq. 01. O0E SSIO Stt[ POPUStI OH OSSO STLIT UI POSnOO 1.S1 DT.. 53M 0TjM OISUON JO 1D1.SDT S0 tt0!T Dtfl. JO 9uot1.Onll.9uT Dfl. U0 TUt[ODO 103 tqoIor o ooq stj 1.uos L96i UI OH SptZDTSI 10)Ifl 0ISU'131 r-° 6t7oN . 4o0 ss qun000T su c'oi JO ropjotj 0fl S3M ssoda1 DUO SMOTTOJ SD IJDt1 SM DSZ10 uoqnoosorcI D1L 4 t 0950 SIT.fl. Ut posnoos ot.fl. 30 Jj 1.1.TnbOD oiq. stxt3'?5 uot1.no -DS0.1 oqn JO 101.OD.1T Dt. q isodds US si silql •f 'THOIII)I - WL1IIDLfl2 OopOo 1UD 3C s/o soouo1.o.xd 0915; Jq ouow ututsqO :t7 squnoo °DPOD tDUDci Otfl. JO s/o R aD3 J0J:T I S1.Ufl 0 0 02 T H3 S S 0 0 S (poo'T pU t5U .1O)aniOdPi IM7I K71rIrII .1 i 0 SA (.1Oi..nOoS0.1d 1 5 utT 1 0) Immajjv I 1IafldEH HL 01t3 1.UDPTCOU rotuo 'tcamtnzowfl'O OJOJOLT DZUDII'T 1- 1.0t11.Sta 'SZUDMPI 30 1..In 0 0 q.0I11.StC Otfl. JO 6961 'ON 0353 ISuTWTIO 1 5U1T 1O •oL6iLffo 6 'o& iiiT TflIIWIHD 'UOI1.OtPStlflf 0 . 5 TIDdd7 ¶! (•J11.st01-T oIrstjr Dtfl. ui) JIM7ZN7Jj dO JfflOO HDIH J IM NI 1' 077" ho fact that_it was not possible for the F.w.6 to thumbprint or that in fact novcr thumbprinted Dx Dl & D2 (joe. the two withdrawal forms referred to above) it is therefore not possible for mc to give a definite answer to that question. • ....,In the circumstances the facts of this case raises much doubt in my mind asto whether the ccuad parsons committed the offances as charged. U The Director of Public Prosecution has no quarrel against the acquittal of the Post Master (1st accused in the lower court) but has appealed against th; acquittal of the second eccueed, the Respondent in this appeal on the ground that - There is no need for another set of fingerprints i.e. the fingerprints of the P..6). Such a specimen of the complainant would have boon super- fluous because there are no two sets of fingerprints that arc identical. Once it is proved by documentary evidence from the fingerprints a:prt that the finger- f print on the withdrawal forms with the complainant's name on the forms was that of the respondent that would be enough for the conviction of forgery and uttering a false document and staa1ing. The State appeal against the acquittal of the respondent is on this point only. This appeal must be allowed for a roaon which does not require much explanation for it is clear that the tfial magistrate misdirected himself on the principle of fingerprint evidence. ind the principle is that there are no two sets of fingerprints any- where in the uoi'ld which arc identical. So the fingerprint expert's evidence that the fingerprints on the withdrawal forms wcrc identical to those of the Respondent in this appeal was conclusive. It needed no furthr verification with the P.W.6 1 s fingerprints. The Respondent was therefore acquitted on a fiiiding which was manifestly wrong. The appe'i is for this reason allowed. The appellant's acquittal is quashed and the case is remitted to the lower court with directions to convict and sentence him. Delivered in Court the 3rd day of March ? l970 . ..- / Z p A - - - - - - --