19701125 TZHC Mwanza2

\31c1r)3l 1N THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA •1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION MANZA REGISTRY 4' CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75fr OF 1970 Original Criminal Case No. 529 of 1969 of the District Court of Kigoma District at Kigoma, before B.D. Chipeta, Esq., Resident Magistrate. MOSHI MPENDA, MGALUL1 SINGA .... .............../L?........APPELLANT Versus REPUBLIC • . . . • . . . ........ ......o . . . • . • • ......• 74.0 ..P;OND. CHARGE: Obstructing a Police Officer in due 60JI/ c/s 243 (6) of the Penal Code. .-.--- / JUDGMENT. KISANGA, AG.J. The two appellants Moshi Mpenda and Mgalula Singa were jointly charged qandconvicted of obstructing a Police Officer in the clue execution of his duty oontrary to Section 243 (b) of the Penal Code, and were each sentenced to 8 months imprisonment. They have each appealed against both conviction and sentence and the appeals are consolidated. The facts were that during the evening of 9.10.69 Special Constable Said (p.w.i) arrested one Juma Bukuri (p.w. 4) who was alleged to have assaulted one Zubeda d/o Mfunya (P.W.2). While Saidi was leading Juma to the Police Station the two appellants appeared and asked Juma why he should agree to be arrested by a speoial constable. They pulled Juma away from Sajdi and threatened to beat him up if he insisted on having custody of • Juma. Said.i gave in because of fear and both appellants duly took Juma away with them. I I Both appellants in their unsworn statements denied the allegation. They.said that they did, not know Juma and so they could not have interfered with his arrest by Saidi. The learned trial magistrate, however accepted the prosecution evidence and duly convicted the appellants as charged. Each appellant in his memorandum of appeal has alleged that the offence was not proved because there was no evidence to show that they had any weapon with which they obstructed the Police Officer as alleged.. It would seem that in order to prove the offence it was not necessary to show that any weapon was used. On this point Mr. D'Souza who appeared for the State referred me to an English desion in the case of Hinoholiffe Vs. Sheldon (1955) 3 All E.R. 406. In that case police constables had surrounded a certain inn on suspicion that liquor was being consumed there after drinking hours. The appellant arrived there and on finding the constables he spoke certain words which amounted to warning the inmates that the police were on the premises. When later on the police entered the bar they did, not find any drinks being consumed. The appellant however was charged with obstructing a Police Officer in the due execution of his duties. He was duly convicted and on appeal where the conviction was up?Aeld it was held that "obstructing" in this • - - - *ao anf 0v (2u2si 'HH) e.rque T UT PBS OT WSTP sç I2edd2 eit ittsoi e uewUosT.xdwT sa le aS 8ATJ 3t mvT £q paqtxose.xd q uetuqs T uud wtuuTx2w pu'tui Ut 19utivaq etsseoxe eq oi. ps eq ouuo l usllgddv toa uo pesodwt ueunzostdwt stuow 9 jO eouei,ues etj, 0 e.IeJ.xa!T2T o. uoseei OU eq PIflOM eeq. PU2 UOp,.OAUOQ et ut.srs o. uetoçj;ns si't eOU9PTA8 MBTA AW t1[ $OUepTAe 2T.fl. UO UtO2 pue 2ut.de3O2 uT p8JJB 9T . qze2ns o UTT4OtI 2T e.zei. PUV ? - M - ,l PUV i ra jo eoueptAe 914 uo perteJ e't u1edde et. ut.otituoo uj luoTe -nTQuoo ews ei. o ewoo et PTnOm OR POmOTTOJ ueaq e.uipeooxd oex.too et pt p.zooe.z aqq. uo .reTo swees .t PuV j7 4 90UCpIAO Md JO eoueprAe et. pop.xe.xsp et. 2ixtttT8Ae ut e zsT2W 12tx. e 2J I.Ou 92M IoI.Ie 9tq. a-eeddv PIflOM .t IeAeMOH UOOtp2JJ2O) 2 JO UOT doq.u8 UT 8OU9PTA9 'T .nd eq I. Ou P T nORs eotlod eq. o. snoTAe.xd siq i9OTTQd et.. o l. uewes anoTAeJd sp. woij .ueJoJJçp ewoeq eouepTAe st UeT414 jeto Ut uotutwxe sTtl ut.xhp eouepe u'ç T nd ueeq 9AVq plfloqs uewe,B eo'clod tt eq pnoqs enpeood oeJJoo ei* TvT4T uees pnoM 'xoq ei.. pe.xeue jeswpjVeojeq aouepie ut q.rtd st eotIOd eq. oq. T uowqq ,ej. s sp( esnoeq a vTn29 JJT eq o. sJ2add2 peMOTOJ ernpeood et. rq 'sseupt WTq Ps lu ejq. XT.zedo.id uotnoesoid eq e.xojeet inoo e o. uototIdd UO ' 4j JO £pono 8fl. WOJ 4V8M2 UJTq )OC. 8q.UCthI2 oq. eq. TUBPTOUT et. JO SVP el.(q. 110 2Tt. pU2 e.U2II9dd2 eT Metn et eT4 qot4lk UT eoTtod at o .uewe8.s sp peopq.uoo eouepTAe sTT.L '12TX. eij 2 ;xttoo U T et. JOJ Wet M28 et U2 d.U2IIedd2 etJ. MOU3 OU ptp et .eqq. .JTLOO Ut PTvs 999UTM sT 1 1 SeUtM 8'SOt 2 s (P M'd) ieumr &uTe..r. UT P9MHOJ OU SRM exnpeood qoa jj oo S2M Ieedd2 JO unvpuxowew eq. UT p9st2J ou 82M qOqM .utod aouv p9900fls qouuvo T2ed2 JO punoiR STT. q.Sq. Me'p. etj. JO eJOJaJeq. W2 Sp flO £1180 O. ieojjo eOtTOd eq. JOJ qtflOTJJt e.iow .T qNsw O. pBpUeqUI 92M TOTtTM OflUOO .ieq.o IcU2thL I nd dca1. -00 JO Sp.XOM pesn squ2edd2 I.2qq. UOqa aT -T JT TueTOTJJIIS ST Jj 'aUOdeeM 1cu2 '&ST1 BU21ath2 elqT q.L-lqq.moTp O. AVJBSseOeU Tou svm I.T 2 ui q ouj q sqo jo e2J8t(o ei eAoJd Oj. xepxo ut wees PIflOM eoJeeq. -pue uod2eit Au2 esu .OU PTP u2ITedd2 9. eAoqe peuot.uew 9S20 9i9JJT I OqOUTH et. UI Wt1{ SUT222 92W 2u T aq q.Tnvssv J0 uot2efl8 et t18 2Uf tit.se.re JO 4TLp ST1 flO ICJJ2O O. I 'Md JOJ Tt1OTJJTP eJOW q.T Ut2W PUT 2uT j !~ snjj O. peUflOUJ2 9U2ITedd2 e. jo PUOo eiq. 18810 w898 'pflOM 'U2[[edd2 eqq. O. 2UIUf P9S2918J .128J JO 4.110 1 Md uodn —eJeT4bt '8eJtJ. et no UpV.LX2O JO UOT. 2J 2 deJ UT qaTlqs sti pa A otuai epuad yl Tow .uwITedd2 e. uej 'thi wii eq P TTtOm S9 qT vwrf JO Rpoeno UTdee UO pestsUt I 'Md JI U 8J'1J. O. tAO 2.U8M $U2TI8dd2 e13 .1 J4d WOJJ 4V8MV vmnf pelind pue awo s.u 2 ITedd2 i r4'd £q p8seJJ2 S214 nmr JOI.JV P 3 TJT.9e 'M'd PU2 I MCI 8S80 .ueseid eqq. U] s oT.nP JTtfl. nO £1180 o. eotiod JOJ qnotJJp e.oui t utw suew pce.uoo - IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZLIrIA (In the District Registry) AT MWANZAQ Appellato Jurisdiction. A ES CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.87 OF 1970 Original Criminal Case No.217 of 1969 of the District Court of nusoma District at. Musoma Before R.J.L.Ruhumb.h:a, District 'leagistrato ZABLON JAPHET. . . . . . . . . . APPELLANT(Original Accused., vs0 THE REPUBLIC. . . • • 0 ..R7SPONDENT(Qriginal Proccc CHARGE: Breaking into a itosque and Stealing c/s 296(1) of the Penal Code. (1st Count) Breaking into a Church and stealing c/s 296(1) of the Penal Ccd, (2nd Count) JUDGMENT. KISANGA, .Ag.J. The apnellant Zablon Japhet was charged on two counts with Moscçue breaking and stealing and Church breaking and stealing both contrary to section 296(1) of the Penal Code0 At the conclusion of the case iIOwever ho was only found guilty of receiving property stolen from the Mosque and from the Church for which he was sentenced respectively to 2 years and 3 years imprisonment with one lot of 24 strokes of corporal punish- ment, with a further order that on his release from prison he is to he under police supervision for 3 years0 He is. now appealing against the convictions and sentences. It was alleged, that between tne months of August and Novembr, 1968 a Mosque and a Roman Catholic Church building in Ivlusoma town: were broken into and various items of property were to1en from them0 During November that year one Joseph Magesa (P.W.2) who works at the Church building which was broken into found the appellant at a carpentry work- shop in town with 2 white sheets and one green piece of cloth which were ticd together in a bundle. The witness identified the clothes as part of the property which was stolen from the curh. This bundle was put ia evidenco as E:diibit 'A'. After this' discovery the witness, referred the matter to the police who arrested the appellant on the same day. Acting on Information the police went to search the appellant's room on 3.1.69 and recovered from it many clothes which wore shown to be those stolen. from the Church. Acting on further information the Police searched ti appellant's room again on the following day and found hidden in the mattress the clothes which were shown to be among' those stolen from ±h': mosque.. The appellant in his unsworn statement said that on 30.1l..68 h. went to a carpentry workshop in town to make a photo frame. Then P.'J.2 came there and' on finding the bundle of clothes (kxhibiit—A) he askod whose the clothes were.. He oponad the 'bud1c to soc the clothes pro.wrly and after doIng co he then alleged that, the clothos were in the appellant's possession and., that the appellant. was. a thio±. P.'i.2 reported to the police wno thcn. arrest.ed the appellant.. On 4.1.69 the appellant was pIottdrt unoo rio :ctorAuoO Dtfl. utpo0Ocj SOt0 0 OU. 30 UOtSSDSSOd potuOp 4U[0dd otfl. DEt?OOq oqrAout 9M trotOtAuOO oq. uorp poA'toq SM ottq.p stT.. OOu JS SM uOt4 0t3tuOpt PU0t' .t ptt Do[ DIOtM 'rnoItfl. utriurtt soon o. UT pO'poqwo SS0tO e tq.ç!\ OOOT J0 tIorrLT3 DTp Aq soroo otq po;ttzopt oq pts 9S0U.tM t5tt3, 05 UT0p Ut :UO1SIRIA o qet. s o oqtn we j pue SSOUiM stt. potbçq oexq.st3ow :70To T4,L ot0o tt oxo.t Vor. 'pts .uUoddo ott.q. Pue J. T rtoq .pimbuo OH tpuoq s oquothzo ot.. rio sEtfloTO 30 optmc oçtj Ufl0J pt2 dotszoM RaTuodai2o o oq. 1.uDA ot pies oa&oldulo rointj ot. y-_qtqtT.pc) soqoo ro optmq Otfl. SX5O.I 55 l xoAomou, tDtO3JtP SJeDdCI uottsod otp awoot o.uetodde et. woxj poxoa000x oton TOM so0o tTOJrtLJ3 30 ed ?t.fl. 0. tt0t12TE.I Ut J CTdde PIflOM uoumte OVITS .. DT4 1 0p1S5 O5 O0UOtIO --)i,i pUS pO5Sflb .TUI)I0OOC st r pus puc ouueo oo3sIotfl. onbsow oq. U!ox3 irsios ssu.o1 0 TTO0oI Io3 uot'.ottuoo ouj Aiisnbo pnoo riostsd tCtflO OtT... - os ouop DAell saoq ozor. sotoo osotiq. do pus qnoxq out ueUod':is ou. si I.T etq utetOO Jo ooi3p ictts tfltt4 qissodwt sq p l uosi n. .T wooi ei4 o. es °01 so000s psq oqm suosiod oi oamm, souts srni ssouq.u.i e se lou p3rioos—oo S 55 p0ZCit3 DOT.1 SCM puOtlj TaT2 ST uiooi strr oq. SS000S pCT 2um; tIi s -rt riostid PUCV.Oi tit JSMS set.t ueITodds st o - turi sti. uoxsdds sT .! snqj T1T10 piss oqq. STqeumsoad 'aD&ol sirt oi ot. usit OIS1. 0O. pOWteIC) .UCT10dCIS Ot. St S.CS aoqfl.xnj SSOU.tL1 p ue Of cu pst ueI1odds cilo, sc xoop or.. rio ooi oi. ooq DiT cjCss SSOUIM 0uq. 6961 -g zenusr ut woox orq uoxsos oq. owes ooi1od ou01. rio ZDn1_ TT uo •woox Ot 01 V03 Otfl. DACtT j ou PTP OtTS Se usdo xoop oto utsoiq iq xuo pouts - ri uostId priewox otto. .e 01.uellodde oq. o. o. qxtus s pus sxosnox -0,0 )0O. PtZ 9961 'a -~ UIDODG UT woox Dt4 poxquo TueTToco 3t101. 30 utYEJJ OuO puewox rrt SCM q uellodde or. orqM pTes 01UST1Odd3 ot01. jo pxo - pus - o. (cy 'd) SoDeTq utsne .ue11odde cq o uotssossod Ut ptitioj 01DM 0.00 MOttS 0. DOUDptAO 1.tIDTOtJJflS .Ott SCM DlOtfl. TeLfl. xoodde pnoM I. T 6 --mbsoll ot. o trtuoDq soqqoo oLjq. epxs?ox s 'rds oq. uotsSessod UO001 30 Ottl.QO Ot. 103 JUo[ 0001. SCM V.xodoid UO0qS DUJ0 lOAO001 .10 D02p s pus jor. oiln, jo oqsp ot. uoo.oq potxod aqq. osuuoDq 'UtCDS puS Ut3S0Iq 30 ttCW. IOtfl.S1 UtAt000i 30 4-tn3 usiiodde ot puno. sieodde vc Issoxdxo OS .iCS .0U SD0 OT fl0t[[ tt0tSSOSSO(i ortuiodds or. ut PUflQJ 01DM SDt.0I0JO sot.t.usrtb SnOTICA OTJq. 01tIq P0J J:I c1ios S,usIIOckTs Dtfl. po01.000011 4CIq.StCuJ 1T01- POttt5OT Dt{J D -j0d xaqqo .q siot. poueId uosq siet stw Saqj. qtfl. OS oxOtq. .OU 01DM nDu.oIo osot. o.nq .xot[teo potoieos uooq peiT WOOl O DlOtfl. PUr03 alqM uotnoosoxd oq. q pouotq.uow se sot.00 snotxsi at(j pus oo!Tod p0t0ICDS SCM WOOl OTtj O1DtM Suip0 tj O. uostxct PtIU!0l U10IJ UD)S 0 ON The appellant was shown to have a shocking record of previous convictions including convictions for burglary, house—breaking, stealing, office breaking and breaking into a place of worship. In the circumstenc:, a sentence of three years imprisonment althou!i it is on the heavy side iould appear to be justified0 That SCfltuflcQ required to be confirmed by this Court and it is accordingly confirmed. Save to the limited extent as indicated above, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Delivered in Court on 25th November, 1970 (R.H. KLeauG.L.) tinJw.