19730629 TZHC Mwanza2

uoowos mts puu 'ueTTedd ei. Jo asnoq et. Jo uopoerçp wo.xJ ti'pnoo tOJO MS ET4 iiq. ptS u tcIwoO OtJ TIflJ nOs Ot 4. " rW pue 31sta ntlq. e3feq. o. q.OU Wrq poq ptz UTUUflJ wtt o. qtI tzmri uei • -ttq oTq 9,Ou pip quutdwoo et. quodd tiq '.xods e 1" uIP T OIT pu' un8 stu PUTPEOT qus1edd tq uos pt aq qoqq. paes @q ss srot s -tq ut doels oq. otx 'irt;sj 'puet.xJ stt q paujem s c m queuisdwoo etq. 'wd o6 .roqs r posxedstp etq. joJet uT oT dwo o °tti- tIPf O. PGu e4.PG Xq q. nutuiiedds etq q.et{q pe.eTe su 'euoui eq 2UTf5 .10 utees petuep us - —utoidwoo etq uet —/oLi -stfS ;oiunoms tie iouow stt uees pet et ;t wtt pese pue uoiq powul000s siti oq. ueuteidwoo et. p11 0 queTTedde ei.q. ctp_ Pe 2 eTTV se I roct ipee.rje ue11edde eiq. punoJ eq pus e5UiA eots 8J5[ Jietq. 0. 8tIJT1OJ q ueuTeTdwoo atq. zL6i 'ttoxw jo ttot9I eTq. u e1etrna q.e qus1edds aql. 2 UTA e OT 'I PTT° eosEd .xeqqouu'oq uo pepeeood usuis1dwoo etjL tietn ue ou pip atq. riq 'p00; toqe; oq. eueur ... txe ueuietdwOo etq. pue qus11edde o7qq. 'L6i 4 T1oJsw Jo ttii et u ueuhIeIIsiJ .uepuedepui 55 peOe U050 qSnOqq.T e 'e.xos et uo•e J eqqO 140 eO o, esoioosrott 2uT TT emP Sae i odwaq. Ut uew.IosiJ OJSM 'zotrioesojd etp. JOJ sesseuqtM .xeto etq. pus 'U5UT5Tdulo9 ot 'usedde etj f Im000s O.tXt U8)f5!. e j am l ee dde .IOJ spuno.x siq q.riq 'pueq4s oq. LTsl ou pip 5T tjq peqsoipui 1sedde Sit JO UTJ5OT4 Otfl. qe qUOS SSM q. UeTTedde eqj, OTI se otqridoj quepuodse.i et. 10; peedd5 eries xj SeutfqqV e.sq peuee JOpJO pus eoueques 'uOiqaiAuoO q.SUTPDe poeedde 9}j (Td) uttoj a/s desoj' c.te ususTdwoo pe.oe etq. oq. —/099 Jsd oq. PUS '.&1IeJJriOtZO0 pe.xes eq O. qutioo tose uo stuow 6 JOJ quouiuosçcTsrç oq. peOUeqJXeS SSM e H 91 .d53 5p03 Teue cl 9t. JO c gz Uoiaes O. LISJqUOO JO Luo1eJ e uiiwwo, () pus 'epo 1'd eqq. jo pus c6? SuOtO5S oq JSJqUOO .uui5eqs pUS as-no-q DuTTTemP S otii 2utequ7 () '"91 -deo opO3 1 5U 0 d ett. JO (q) () 69 UO!4OSS O. AJSJqUOO eoUeOi nc 2utueeeJtJ (z) •ds3 OOUsUtpJo P' JO (i) i P (i) T SZOiO O. AJ5JUOO weeij Jo UOTSSSSSOd TflJMeItiflu (i) —:jo p0 —qOiAUOO pUS 'q !~ TM pe2JSt(O SSM SJ8JSfoi5)j a/s Opeu J ag r 'AcrNDI—'-I NfJCftf •epO3 1Ud -T- JO 99 s/a J0T4 Jo uoioj s 9UT 14 TWWOO 0p03 15USd STfl. Jo c9? ss/o UTS0B pUS SSflOt .UuTTSMp S OUT UTJSU J l opoo 1 5 Usd 0fl JO 69 s/a OOUOI0TA ttTM tiTUe5eJt () () •d53 •p.I0 UOiqititiWWf pUS swav Stfl. JO (i) i pus (i) i ss/o WJSCJTJ JO uotssssod P1JMSTUII '1 0 0 0 0 ......... ........................... 3I'Tfld1 aHI STI S JCA 0000 tH0)IX)I){ oaaa IdcIT ................. .......... o/(r 'bs 'MJ0q N'ff e.xOJeq St5)I ° 0M25J5)j JO JriO3 -°TTcl 0 14q. Jo L6i Jo L ON 0553 TSUTWTJO 1 5 UTTJO L6i dO 66z °N nI cIdT tTTNIWI'O JTfl0O HDIH ZNV1W L VINVZNLL dO Jfl03 HDIH 71U NI t, I —2--- but he did not see if that person was holding any weapon. Nevertheless, the complainant left his house and paddled across the lake to the house of his brother. This provides the background to the alleged criminal offonces. The first count alleged that the appellant was found in unlawful possession of the gun.. The evidence showed that the appellant war in possession of a gun although he denied it, but there was no evidence that such possession was unlawful having regard to the evidence and the circumstances of this case. I would respectfully agree with the learned State Attorney that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.. The conviction is quashed and sentence set aside on this count. is to the second count, there was also ample evidence to show that the appellant threatened to shoot at the complainant and aimed his gun in that direction, but he did not fire and the complainant ran away. The act of the appellant was observed by many people who had gathered in an attempt to reconcile them on the alleged amount of Shs, iit)/— which the appellant thought the complainant must have taken from him. I see no reason to disturb this conviction. As for the 3rd. and 4th csn -t, the,e was equally reliable evidence to show that when the complainant was away, his temporary house was left rpen, and that the appellant was seen enteri*g that ho.e where he was seen taking items of wear belonging to the complainant. Whefl the eoi- plainnt. When the complainant returned he f.'u.nd them missirg.. The appel- lant denied the allegation. I am satisfied that the trial ctr-t was entitl- ed to hold that the appellant stole. the items of wear, but there was no eriderioe that in the alleged pair of tro.Tsers. there was Ss. /- a.; alleged by the Qmp1ai.at alone. The conviction is upheld intheetwo. counts, but the compensation order is reduced to Shs. 86/-. ORDER: Except as indicated, this appeal is dismissed in respet of the majority of offences. Delivered, in Court at Mwanza on the 29th day wf June, 1 973- ;"1' -,----- 29th June, 1973. JUDGE ppe1lait - absent Mr. Mbilinyi - S... for Republic.