19721124 TZHC Arusha4

vu IN nmn COUR o -. ,- AT ARUSZLA APPELLATE JURtØflICflON ItIOU courn CThtNAL I' AL KOe 24 OP 172 ORXGINAL CRIVINAT4 C o 98 OF 1072 0? TR3 DIXT COURT OF MASAI 1)TsTRXCT AT E1JLI toz'e .A,M. M*riku, ftqiw o 3iotz'ict Uji8trøtee ELX.AS i/o SONGOYQ I, • •. JWPELLMr verouø Tm flEPLTTILtC R8PDXW ENT PR0aEUT0R) This i n appeal agalnot oonvition and sentence on a ehwie or robbery with vio1ere e/e 268 of the Pen1 Co'e. The oti.tnut Uege that h wcnt to ee one of his riits t MonftaIt Government floeiit and afterwrde went to o bar where he met the appellant and * woman# Be ackod the ape11ant whether lodgingo were 9vailQhc in the diiitriet mid the appeflant offered to 4o aommodate him so he was a atrtngei's They went to the pe3.' lant's hone together with the woari and the appelitmt bought some beer and ç9v0 one to the conplainant& Later the aellant with the vio1nan e aattanoe JmVod on him, held him and took aw b1 noner. No then threw him outdde and his forehead atruk the doo. The cotVlainant suffered a wound, The neagilaots cLOed the docr but the coiiiplainaut marked the houe with oome of the blood from hie vroundo, A. report wan *itade to the police the tollowitLg norning P,W4 gwe evidence that the appellant and the complatrumt,wore at his bat' on the evening in question and left together. Be ftirther stated that the oomplstnnt had boon ma-ki-na, Onquirles, absiat lodging. The police eav the howo with marks of blood on the door and the coplainant identified the appeUnt from among gop of p*ple. The appellant denied that he wan over with the comlainan1, He himaelf had made z report to the police that he :j to bed and ir the morn1ag be found the doer or bin huce open and money misa.ing. flia wile supported him. The only ioae in question was whether the sppeUat wan the one who robbed the complsin&nt, The leaxned nagistrate found that the nmrking of the door of ppellant'n house and the eom plaint's identifring the appellant oanilr among a group of people placed the matter beyond any reaoomble doubt. This was a question of fact and the finding to oupported by, the evidence. X see no grounds on which T can interfere with the convict ion and sentence of seven yearn tmprisonient in the minimum, I die miss the appeal in Its cntirety ioUvered in Cotrt at Aruha the 24th day of Wovember, 1972. C.L Yiratrbl.e, CiWosm. k.)