19740103 TZHC Dodoma
IN THE HIC-hT COU?LT OF TANZANIA bs/Lcf AT DODONA (PC) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 1 973 (From the decision of the District Court of Dodoma at Dodoma in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 1973 Tfmoja I'Iatonya........................... . .Appellant versus Char Cattle theft c/s 268 & 265 of the Penal Code. JUDGMENT The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19740103 TZHC Dodoma
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 3 January 1974
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
No structured case brief is available yet for this judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIC-hT COU?LT OF TANZANIA bs/Lcf AT DODONA (PC) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 1 973 (From the decision of the District Court of Dodoma at Dodoma in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 1973 Tfmoja I'Iatonya........................... . .Appellant versus Char Cattle theft c/s 268 & 265 of the Penal Code. JUDGMENT The appellant was convicted in the primary cofrt of stealing a sheep, contrary to sections 268 and 265 of the Penal Code and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. His appeal to the district court was dismissed in entirety. It is clear that the conviction was based partly on circumstantial evidence and partly on a confession. The evidence which the trial court believed shows that the sheep was stolen during the night and that a search was mounted during the same night when the appellant was found with a large quantity of meat as well as a head of sheep., which the compla- inant identified as that of his missing sheep. The appellant admitted that he had stolen the shee1 and led the party to the place where he had slaughtered the sheep. The normal loft-ovo:s, mostly the belly contents were found at that scene. In my judgment the decisions of the lower courts are sound and the conviction is based on contraining evidence and it has to be affimod. Consequently this appeal against conviction is dismissed. The sentence of five years imprisonment is the minimum the court could pass and it is to stand. 3/1/74 (D. P. NAPIGANO AG. JUDGE