19731207 TZHC Mwanza

4c - - I IN THE HIGH COURT' OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA Appellate Jurisdiction Criminal Apj'eal.No: 394 of 1972 Original Criminal Case 606 of 1 972 C. of the Dis't±'iot Court of Mwàiia District atMwanza Before: I. G. Rugaimukamu., .Esq. 1 District Magist.rat.. Gabriel Yaseuti•...................... Appellant (original Accused) vexsus S The Republic ......................... Respondent (Original Prosecutor) JUDGMENT MFALILA, J. - This is an appeal by the appellant GABRIEL YASEUTI against his conviction for robbery with violence contrary to Section 286 of the Penal Code for, which he was sentenced to. seven years imprisonment. t 'pears that on the day in cuestion that is to say on 22nd April, 1972 at about 7.30 p.m. the complainant one Christopher Munisi was proceeding from town towards his home at Nyamagana. As he was thus proceeding he was suddenly caught from behind by some person and had both his hands held from behind.. The complainant raised an alarm and his assailant took to his heels. He however discovered that his wrist watch was missing and started chasing his assailant. He chased the man while raising the alarm and as they neared a mosque in the vicinity, a watchman presumably at the mosque appeared in front of them. This threatened the man and he ran backwards. He was then caught by the complainant with the help of one Patrick Kapinga who stays with him and who had answered the call of alarm. On being caught, the man who is the present appellant dropped the watch. This was picked up and together with arpellant were taken to the police station As expected intheso cirtmstances the appellant did not have much to say in his own defence except to say that he was simply caught by the complainant and his relative as he was returning home from a walk. During the hearing of this appeal the appellant added that he did not get a fair trial in the District Court because the trial Magistrate refused to record some of, the other things that he said. The whole case turned on questions 'of fact. The learned trial Magistrate eithei' believed or did not believe the cornplaiiint. He said in his judgment that he believed the complainant's evidence as he could find no basis for the complainant falsely accusing the appellant. These were questions of fact. Whether or not the trial Magistrate believed the complainant was a question exclusively .'. . . • . . . .. .:2. . . ( - banr - L6i 'aaoRcE HILL vrriiv r ,. VZNVMIAI •1 'L6i '.zclwooecr J Ap L stt ZUMN -. peXtt 1fl SSTWS PInOM I IMUT 9tq JODUfl WtUIVtUIUI 9TI4. StM pSSd S?M qOLjn OOUUS 9tTIL 6OSO tt')tThOXS 55 )Tq jo uc .OU st suj sssutM rzoJsqxnoô ic' iq opl, wr qo o suçut; qqM e.j.xoqu -r tts xnoo sdth Uu ttp soso [UuciqIooxe IVxsA.ut .i.uo st q -t put? PDATOtmT sxt Ot?J JO StiOçS5flL) /T.ZO 5J5LIM . 5STO StT;;Ut &T OIItS1 p I-ItJ eq OUtZt?O SU')tStVtOU(O S JSt.?t 1t qttj flor' t 5OtI9TAO aqjj 'SeSSetXqiM Ot. jt MtS 5T S u, UOtSOfliD t tJOflS eUTWJ99p O. uottsoct JO4Oq v. UT SMM oq S.XOMOCI STtl UTTTTM ........