19770720 TZHC Dodoma1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' TANZANIA AT DODOMA APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NOo 56 OF 1977 O!UGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NOo 619 OF 197-5 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF DODOMA DISTRICT AT DODOMA Before-: F. Ao Munyera • o •• o ••••• Resident Magistrate -- JOHN S/0 MANOJELAo o o o o o .o o o o o o ., • .,o o o oAppellant (Original Accused) Versus THE REPUBLIC. o o Respondent (Original Pros~cutor) Cattle theft c/s 268 of the Penal Code., 'J U D G M E N T CHIE'ETA, Jo The ap·Jellant., John Manojela, was convicted by Dodoma district court of the offence of cattle theft c/s 268 of the Penal Code, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment under the Minimum Sentences Act, 1•9720. He now appealso The: prosecution I s evidence; which the h~arned resident magistrate (as he then was) accepted 1 was that on 21/-~/75 a cow belonging to the complainant d~sappeared, and it was suspected that it had berm stolen. The complain.mt then started looking for ito The following day, one Daniel Makago (P.W.2) went to a cattle auction at ,Kigwe where he .saw the appellant with a cow which P.We2 identified to be a cow of the complainanto The appellant sold the cow and went to the clerk to register his name as the seller of the cowo The apr,ellant gave his nam<: to the clerk as "John Mazengo". P .. W.2 intervened and told the auction officials that the appellant was deceiving them as that was not his nameo P.,Wo2 then asked the appellant how he got the complainant's cow., The ap _,ell ant said he had borrowed the cowo To the knowledge of P .. W.2, the appellant has no cattle of his own., That same afternoon P .. W.,2 met the complainant at the auction who told P., w,2 that he was looking for his stolen cow., P .. Wo2 then told the complainant that he had s,ien the appellant selling the complainant's cowo The complainant then reported the matter to a police officer, and the two started to look for the appellant but could not find h~mo Eventually the complainant locat~d the buyer of the cow who also named the appellant as the preson who sold him the COWo By then the cow had been slaughtered at the auction. When the app~'llant was asked he said that t,he son of the complainant had given it to him.. The son of the complain,m·t, however, (PW4) completely denied the allegation .. In his defence, the appellant again changed his story. This time he said that the cow had been given to.. him by his father. His fath~',r (DoW.,2) supporb-~d the appellant's story. ,,. • o/ "- .,,. 2 After reviewing th(': ·evidence, the learned magistrate rejected the appc~llant I s story and accepted the prosecution I s evidence a After carefully perusing the evid~nce on record, I find myself in complete agn-~ement with the learned magistrah~o 'l'he complainant gave a careful description of the ide?lltifyi-ng m·ar!cs of the cow, and in this h~ was support~d by P.W.2. The appellant has no cattle of his own, and gave contradictory explanat:·_ .,. ~ which were proved to be false. Indeed, he went so far as to give a false nameo On my own view of the evidence)therefore, I agree with the learned state attorney that the conviction is soundo As the sentence is the statutory minimum, it is to stand. In the result, this appE~al is dismissed in i ..·s entirety" 4Iii</:. ',- :. .(\' :,· 1•.t(-;z., Bo'.Do CHI, ETA ! ( _I JUDGE Delivered in open court at Dodoma this 20th day of July, 19770 ~pellant: Present in person Mro VoDoK. Lyimo: State Attorney for the Republic.