19710813 TZHC Arusha2

f i IN 71W. H10 CC!Jfl? C' AiXJ AT AADJ11A , APL1 JURl.WiCT1u4 CaX*IL APPIAL NQ 111 CV 1971 c.XC1Nt.L ciwini c .. 89i 1989 t' fl11L.O' CCUAT OF ¶I:;cM DLYPRICT AT TAGit Beforo N.I, Mtieni Vaqw l itenident Magistrate A -LANT/Q11 -,V 1104 2 vorew3 L1 RPUBL1C . *.. 4,,o4,.,,e.ra....a... c1OE: Robbery contrary to oectton 286 of the Panel Code. BRA LC, J. - This is an appeal eginet oonviotiori and aeiitenoe on a charge of R4bbiry contrary to esotion 286 of the Ponal Code. The eppe1lrnt was ce or two people cherged with the offence and b was sentenoed to 5 yeere iprieanm:nt with 24 etrokec of Corporal puniahnet. The facte not in dir3ptzte are that two eraona broke into the mplaiflQflt'n hOOO end etole a gWN a box nta.thing iter of clothing and three ringer they were ared 'with a Can and trio one of the coepante of the honee. As egajr.mt the x= ap,l1ant the coerl nanVa evidence aa that it was he who pointed, a Can at PW 2 and tbreteried to kill him. He elbO found her bubrnd'a gun. PH 8 said that he eaw the appellabt two days after the inoidet with a dark box trying tcr sell ciothen alter a few deys the earne box was found near 4tite s,e1ient'e Dhamba and was ta -en to the police. PW 9 alec sew Lim with a box. The appell*nt gave evidence on oath* and enid that he knew nothin of.tha charge and that he did not know the otnor ace uiied. The to qaeations in ieeue were the ide.31fication of the box wit clothing found near the appelj.a,ttla ahsba ae the complainnt'e roperty and also of the appe1int an on* of the persona who toOk part in the robbery. The box in question. uria put in evidence andi it was uotgbt to conect the appeiant with it by the atatecxai of sw 86 P11 that he eald we that the box,whioh the appeflent hed,wa a dark hex. There were probably tbousendo of dark boes around and the witnee did not give any dietinguiahing cark on the one in itterition. At may hiwe OXpLfliOd his own belief but his boliuf is not evide.ieo en to get a court to aacepi it be aust rhuw feote on which 'th&t belit can be reanonably founded* onC vera ehown in t.in onac* fhe position La thzutAszUffiiAg that it eec true that the appellant had clothes in a box on seie,the rcnecu%ion did not prove beyond reueouabla doubt that they were the same thino found in the nh - abe endhet appe1ltnt act be given the benefit of the doubt. On the point el '&dentification by the ooiplathsnt all that was said wpe- The witnoes identified the box and aeverel pnen of clothes which were in court as the olothea tolon from the bouee. Here again there wan nothin, to show by wh.t iftoota the things were identi- fled. Ov.r and over again this oart tine tr aed the need for getting proper evidence or identification and this evidence must be such that on appellate court can examine it and may wilier the pro)er oono1uain has been drawn. Aesuminf, even that the witneari gove srs of idetifjca- tion to satiefX the trial megL'trate the cotneotion 'with the appallant was not prood •k.ving regard to the find in on the first part of the question. An to the i of the eppellent the complainant said that it was a dark night and, there was only one amll lenp in the house 'the appellant and the other aocueed were brought to the place where she lived ath identified them as the OneS who entered and broke her houua. I 2 4 pii P 13, WiDid thst ha a4ctøi et •caiio p, There oj,e twty o1i and a ur thai tb-o complaiunt did not Who oomplainant iLfed an4 zaid tba ih to ahoi Aar xn T 11nt ovideme i ih th iimt uit1d not iWMify ho w by Ukepit nU kzi stw pointed him out, is and U ti aUzitwas takoz to th3 0V1 Lt' 1O6 cauOdy thta Idoa of a p*rado waa a f4reet IS tha 011arEt w un4 boa of the box of t1otiu be 11ted lo h.av }d U wa i1a opu o ak 1461 to t1he 00aplai.14411i bore a paradu was 41d. Por tb r*n the o2 th tppa11t owumot xtu ic a I ci11 a110 tho qiøh tho ttion at orwtG 1u11 tirtiL thu 13th day 011, hut, 1910 j EJn.