19760806 TZHC Arusha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZMTIA AT ARUSHL APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIIEINAL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 1975 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE 'NO. 19 OP 1975 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OP KOROGWE DISTRICT AT KOROGWE BEFORE: B. S. I-iOZ, Escj., District Magistrate THOMAS PIUS APPELIJNT (Original Accused) versus THE REPUBLIC . . o , • o . . e •. o a a a . a.a o a a a a a • . RESPONDENT a a a (Original Prosecutor) JUDG-I.:NT JO1Ui'rLLI J. The appellant was convicted of robbery with violence, c/se. 285 and 286 of the Penal Code. He was given the , minimum s ontonc 0. There was only onc eye witness, the complainant himself.1 HO said. that on the relevant night at about eleven o'clock travelling to another village ho came across the appellant and other people he did not recognise. The appellant boat him while tIic others approaching him from behind throw him to the ground. There they rc.bbod him of hs.400 which he had in his pockot and made off with it. He at once reported the incident to one STEPHEN (P,W.2) who lived in the neighbourhood. STEPHEN in his evidence confirms th' complainant knocking at his door that night told him he had hocnrobbod by the appellant, duly mentioning his na:ad Ho accompanied the complainant to the scone, at or around which they found the sandals of the complainant which he had left behind while running. The appollant's defence was a littlo interesting. He said that he returned home on the rclovant night only to find sonoono in his room. Cross-oxariinod by the prosocutor he said that person was tho complainant. The complainant would not say what he was doing thcro • Ho however lot him go as there developed no çuarrol between thorn. In his petition of appeal he has expanded on this. He says he found the complainant committing adultery with his wife. He called some people including their Tanu Chairman who duly warnod the complainant to desist from adtlterous acts. He did not however call any one to boar him out. It was a moon-lit night and the complainant said ho and the accused whom ho had known for very long faced each other at close quartcrs. I would think in those circumstances he was wfl placed to recognise him. The d.eienco that the appollan i ounc. fin coaaitting adulicry inside his house is ludicrous and was rightly rejected. It...... . . . . . . . . . . . a 2 It how ovor wont a long wry to show that thoro had been no • :mistken identity on ths part of the .conplainant. Ho was rightly eonvic'tod.. Accordingly, th appeal is disnissod in its entirety. (p. JT JONATJLN) JUDGE. • Judgaont delivered in open court at kruhwthis 6th day of August,1976. (P. i. JoN.T1'.N) PMJ/MTPLI.. JU1GE. •