19771014 TZHC Mwanza

Il~ Tri.i., lH(rn COUHT OP ··1111.N:.::JuHA Ne ~~. AT M1·IAI~LiA .. APP£LLA'11.l!i JUHIJi.iivl'ION CHilvlINAL APi:l,:;iiL Nu. 173 Ol" 1977 (Original Criminal C... se ifo. 410 of 1977 of the District Court of Biharamulo ~1~trict at hiharamulo - Bafore J.W. O~ola E~q., Di~trict Mu~istrate) hOl\iJi.ulJ L.,I~ o••••o••···········"···••OoOo••·······APP.i:.iLLAN·r Versus ·r1:1Ao!.i 1t~PJB1rc •••••. •>·• ••••••••••••••• o., o o Cl" • • • • • • • • 1t,;,,;;.:j1)u1;D~!~'r. Charge: Causing dec1th throu 6 h den 6 erous driving c/s 40 (1) and 63 (2) (b) of tha Rodd Traffic A~t. hv. JO of 196J. ~ JUDG.c;i,1.GN'r. KA'l'I'l'I, J. - Biharamulo Di.;trict Goud, convicted Moha1iied L,Jiza as chare;ed and im_poced il scrntence of imprisonment of two yectrs. .:.c.J ........ Mohamed Lwiza is nov, appealin6 c:gaim,t conviction and sentence. It is beyond dispute, th<.1t the ap_pellant ·i"ias a.rivin 6· l:>T 7150 Isuzu TipJer of .ilater D..;velopment bu.kc oa, when 80mGhow the deceased, Lamson Rweyemamu dropped off, fell down and subsequs:ntly died as a result thereof. None of the workers, who were in this vehicle, apart, from the appellant, gave evidence to sho1-1 lww this accident happened. After an elapse of about six hours, B 3868 d/C!)l. Athman 9 who confe8::;ea untold ignorance in th0 art of vehicle i11spection, went to the scene,. and with the ·: n~l-p of the appellant drew a sk'3tch .f)lan. He conc:.::.l es his evideuce as folJ;ows :- 11 The acc_ident was cau:::;i;;d by dane;erous driving, becdu::;e, the accused drove so specdly th~t when he twisted the vehicle on the corruGations, the passen 6 ~rs on the tipper.u.rop;,ed offo 11 ·rhe ne.xt .vitne..;ti was, lJr. J.,v.J. bilsma, who te8tir'ieci on the c~use of de3th. Ou the above evidenoe,the trial ma~istrate, was unhestdnt in convicting the apJelldnt. On my part, I see no evidence th~t could conceivably found the conviction of the a_t>pellc::.nt. T.i,e .Doctor could and did only testify, about the cat....i.;e of J.edth of deceaBed. Tue Police Officer's evidence about ::;peed s~ou.ld not h~ve been ~dmitted, first because he was not at the scene of acciuent, and was therefore speculating, and secondly bGc~use he h~d no e~p~rtis6 to read ~nd calculate the speed ch~rt. All in all, this is no evidance to show or, prove th~t the appellant was i:;u.ilty of, causin6 d.e~:th by <..1.1::nGerov.s ci.rivin6·• •r1.e app0al is allowed, conviction quashed anu bent6nce ~et asiae. ~le appellant to be released im,naciiJ.tely, unleu~ oti"0r1~ise le 6 --1lly hGld .• Delivered tais 14th dtiy of O~touer, 1977 • h__,. .__)\.AC.'-~V .8. w. Kati ti Judgt>. \