19780125 TZHC Mbeya

3 /1.0 S300t pt3 su.xoq GLII jo moloo Lfl. 8tiptrotrç - ITU pars @Ljj jo UPIS oqq. o. - sq.octo pax pu Tt[M. - .xnotoo trus pt IITu at peqs toq 1ca 'wpre at. jo dTusa@Lwo parrpino sapid ttoa urTw paaqn[s u jo sjoot pu saiotj sup15 atfl 2uoadsuT q IT pTP TTnq pncp '-n 1,JTTUOPT O. pe.xothtnct oqm esouj - 'SflJ:eM 4$ JO vqI aq O1. 1WtU aLlI jo Apuap at ptuOi4noasoId et. 'xatflaL[M S8M IT axo;aq uoçsanb uui atq IeqI Tanoo xe/toI OL11. tflçtk a 8a2 P i -. sçq.' xiat aortpo.xdei o papuawç ou ç Inoo xeo aq. jo uaupn I GqI UT EenbOPt3 u aJde SOJ xotfl0 evsrS3remla i 1 T'sS auo o aLI. =/006ss Is pan 'aTo jo PX-OaLl ouo Tu@IS ptp 'uo2aj PSaq 'otIsca VTOSX uçtT! OTeDuOSVeX It oti Vt qz'Oqb kv 9L61- aaqoIDO jo Ap PU3 et[11. uo uI dt.at[. pee eouajjo at jo nrcI oqj aOUe4.tXeSt puv UOt.OtAuOO ELj. toq euopto o p adcT tj ej-j oj soouq.ua wnmiui iepun jo uouuost.xcIuit jo ULt4 tmrrrwnu e o. paouaquas pu I9 93 s'o qjetfl. 0T.qO jo pa.oAuoo WeA 1O?UI c1r tTIeth etj - ' r 'rtitaiiviw :ticr nr - - 0po3 ruea 993 ci 93 5/0 IJOLII 01q4t3 HVH 3 (.ionoesotd TtIPJT.to) 3i'ianaaa a ia SSJ0A (pasnoov TtZT 9 T.XO) o/s VAIiIt L1TeTjL9I'W 'bsi izi'io€mr 'cta (vii LV J3DI1LsIa viaXi !IO Mfl03 J3IThL$I io 9L6- jo 6ct'oii alsvo IvinflIo nIVNIDIèIO) LL6 i- o i. 'oi IWICTCT\T 'IVIfl'flI3 £IOLLoIaIunI' alvrlrlaciclv VAIfl' JV VLVZNVJJ do ILMOD L0111 all 111 14 .1 N ---- ."- - - -. - - . • ' - '.4 I '-• • . .4. • -.• -, • . 4 :. - - - • I -- - : • T - - t - - - T - • 4 - • • .• •-• •' •- •. • i-,' 4 - p - • - 4 - 1 4 •' 'I TT j)I gq C T OIT :i nJri' • '°'- ' p -. 4}O 31: TGG 1JO2G O ..rT -: Xu 13T1ST co pG II5c J•çT !;GP P° ,cGT0TT T 4 TG J'J-J çs o GI. 'of •L'-2 • ''" • .GIL0CG •yGEJ Tr 4J4.r Q çJG J ( G2L i'O' •VL ? :Ts-T G j 0 CTS 3GuT 0.0 pcif cPT3 1T DaptG r•} nI oco: fJ • ç3 OU T .CG jJG • L-' - -. - cT OIJ • 3* 3 S ,-r - 2 - Neither party spelt out any special marks e.g. cut ears, numbered body, initials of owner etc. But the appellant went a step further. He produced a cow before court alleged to be the mother of the slaughtered bull. The colour of the cow matched with that of the skin of the slaughtered beast - although the trial magistrate observed that the size of their spots differed. Despite the above anomalies the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. It was satisfied the prosecution witnesses had told the truth - remarking that the appellant would not have uttered to PW5 - a Police Officer - that he had bought the bull at Jong'ie when, as he told the court, the same had been given to him by his father (mu). On the basis of the facts on record I find myself unable to aee with the lower court that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the identity of the slaughtered animal beyond all reasonable doubts. If anything it was 6.the. appellant who had adduced evidence that tended to tilt the scale in his favour. He had produced a cow which he claimed to be the mother of the slaughtered bull. The colour of the two animals were remarkably similar, It is irrelevant that their spots differed in size. They surely need not be exactly the same in size. It is said that the appellant had informed a Police Officer (fl15) that he had bought the bull at Songe. Appellant denied the allegation on oath. And indeed there was no written statement to confirm P1,15 a assertion. ,not One wonders also why PW5 could take immediate steps leading to verification of the alleged appellant 1 s statement if ever one was made by the appellant as claimed by PV15? Why, alternatively, didn' t P15 enlist some independent witnesses to the alleged statement? In all the circumstances therefore I am unable to endorse the lower court's.finding as to the crecubIlity of witnesses. In my opinion the prosecution had not proved its caGe beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly I would give the benefit of doubt to the appellant. His appeal is allowed, the conviction quashed and the sentence set aside. Appellant it to be released forthwith from prison unless perhaps held Or some other matter. - -' 4 -3 - In Court at Ueya this 25th day of January, 1978. N.J. IMAIaBETE JUDGE ORD] The question of proceeds of sale of the slaughtered bull etc may be resolved by way of Civil action which does not •- require the same standard of proof'as in criminal cases. N.J.. MAKIDETE JUDGE