19750207 TZHC Arusha 1

I IN THE HIGH COURT OF Tj.NZANIJi AT ARUSHA APPELLATE 'JURI SDI CT ION • HIGI COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 275 OF 1974 ORIGINAL.CRflNAL CASE NO.. 239 OF 1974 .- . OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF McHEZA DISTRICT AT ,MUHEZA BEORE.- P. A MWITA, Esq , District Magistrate. HEIVIED ALLY MHINA APPELLA1T • . : (Original Accused) f • .' versus .. , ', ••., THE RUBLIC .. ... . f... RSPONDT (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE•— Robbery with violence c/s 285 and 286 of the ' Penal Code JIJDGEIVTENT MAKJUVEE, J. Despite the appellant's verbose protestations to this court I am in respectful agreement with the learned trial court that the'lle.gain.ofrobbery levelled against the appellant wasThtisfaorly.proed.. On 15/3/74, during the evening the complainant SALEHE SELEMANI was robbed 'of hfs' bicycle he was riding as well 'as 60/= cash and a " Seiko ' autdmatic watch by four .. . people he was unable 'o idenCify.' About. two oonths'lateà.: police officer, P.W.2 Detective Constable AUJSTThO, ct±n on some information, accosted the appellant and told him that he wanted to search hiw. The appellant asked for leave to goaside and fetch something and while there 'howas seen by P.W.2 to be removing from his wrist a watch which turned out to be Seiko Automatic. This watch the complainant later satisfactorily identified as being the very one he had been robbed of, a watch he had purchased from a person at. Mambo at shs.680/= some three years previously. Augustino's testimony was to the effect that at .frst the appellant said the watch had been pawned to him by someone but later he changed his story and said that infact the watch had been lent to him by a person called Ndege. He was released and asked to go and bring Ndege, which he failed to do. The appellant told the trial court that Ndoge was a "Jehovah Witnesses"" preacher whose abode he' did not know. One day he came across Ndege and, on his own, Ndege lent him his. watch because the appelant's own was out of'order. H'e said it was not true that he had tried to hide the watch. The learned tnagistrate who heard the case was satisfied that the appellant was involved in the robbery, considering that,. only a comparatively short period had elapsed fbefore the watch was traced to the possession of the 8.ppellant. I am not inclined to disagree with this view. Such a casual acquintance as Ndege, if such'a person ever eisted, could not have given a rather expensive watch to the appelarit in' circumstances alleged by the appellant. •'• • •••'. . . • I••.. 12 N I am satifiethät it ist±iethë elln attnpted to conceal .the.wath..:once he was approached by the Police officer and my view is that this Wb notfortuitous In his Ietrtion to this court the appellant says several things most of which are irrelevant anr soc o whish cont -rodict the theme of his earlier defence.. The appeal agaInst Qonvict ion is dismissed, as is slso the on against t,ho statutory mini.mum1sen.t.oeof7 years imprisonment. . . As 'or the compensation order. of 360/=, apparently • . for th..Q/: dhandthebicycle not recovered, I am in respectful agreement with my learned brothe.r Jonathan who adoittedthe appeal that the le'rred trial- magistrate gave no indication at all as o •how he arr1ed at the figure. There was absolutely no evidence as to the value of the "Plying Pigeont" bicycle. Accordingly I am constrained to tary the compensation order and order the appellant to refund only the 60/ o.ash... Fr..he bicycle the complainant can proceed by way of civil action. .. . .. ippellant absent, urireprescnted. Mr. OSINDE for Republic. (L N 1vuKAME) JUDGE Delivered in Court at ArDsha this 7th day of Pebruary, 1975 /MTPM . ... . . . .. -. . :. . . ,. . ...... . .....*-... ,,...