19790321 TZHC Mbeya1

0 xt.Iu TT0111 O aOJOCL 'uTpTLI 1UtLOJ prt LTIg )tT12 pi — Tc OSU — 'Pu ?; U tWk '!t tI13M11 4 — WUTTTTJk os-noLl u ITIO Tj i2L uo Jo cuoq t uo.xj PA.I OarA spoor uoos OTAT jo qso '.InLIIo otq J3uopT oq 'po.ItU [qoustp tvTq pq poo cq Jo o-o Op.I )UIOS 31tO TOTP pui OtI OJJ)3 JO strq 'Stqoi.o JO o -çI E p('T)fl[OUT sp0053 otJJ /?T ' us Ti pooI doLls EE tq -rM pLu pu1 'cIot 'Lfl jo auio p?flTT) oqq. ppLmo J\AT3.t2 'IaiirIII-IsvM IbTIOW OUO JO cioqG oqJrç o.Iq ei.fl ptrn suEocTcIo o.&t; P74. p.i000i OLIT o uTp.I000v !uonI q 'zocjj Jo q01.Iq.STçj- OTIT UIT4t 'oT[[TA iJLçST[ TV LL6T '.ioqoo0 TIP TU uo 4tCUOO uoq oq oq. por ouz;;o 'petptoSu0o o:t't 3€dd .rptm !sooUOJiOS ptrc StIOTqOAUOO ot sup I)cTcit .ttoto uoruoscIurç Sa U O& 9 oq poououes pu pooçtioo OaOM !0po3 luuad etjq. Jo 99E puu gqZ ss/o iqqo.i jo eouo;jo oLjj t.pk ~ 4oExIsoI r 4.MOO q. OTa9 sTg Tzoq Tq oxojoq pe1aiqo f1uTo' oz suocicI qqç pu (47 'ptç 'Pu? '.sI s uoupnç oçt. UT O. poaaojoa o ot 'ç.nj uosp pme aueicnrj pirauT.p .ioLl 'eUqUfl Juxo 41LJ 3 LI 0N O)tT.XJ 6 S10MOLU SZtt 6 SUT1 &ATJ OtJ — 4 f 'D{y4JJ tLDcrar 9p03 13UE1 4 JO g ge pu /o ooueTOp Ttqjx £ieqqo :jy3 a.... I.... '! aucinoasn oIrIackIB:u mL MSZEOA •SS•• 00S0 SVWOHsarnmio 19iDVN/I 'st 'vrwwvw i w leMUMA 3 T OTx q .S T p T0qi JO tO3 OTTcI JO LL61 Jo 393 00H °o ruPiwo 9L199 pu 'ce 1 j79 1 9 oog •dIq 0 zED 310 8L61 jo LL l oiq TvrLi idv r1fl,p3 IOIJ3IctSDiflC V-Klqal IV VIflTZi\!I LtO LUflOO HDIH [HLI Ni 5/ ii —2- In either case several of the cloths seized had names on, of their owner. There was the evidence of Pd.7 and 8 to the effect that the ods retrieved from their houoo had been deposited there a short while earlier by 1st appellant who was in company of several other people who included the four cbher appellants. The two ladies explained that they consented to the goods being left there for a while because 1st appellant whom they know very well had assured thorn that they wore meant for a shop that was to be established around their promises and that he and his group would not be long, to collect a 1,cey, to the intended shop—premises, which they had left behind. 1st appellant did not dispute that the two ladies know him very well. The lower court found the two ladies truthful. I see no cause to differ from that finding. According to PW.1 and other Police Officei's who invstigatod the case - upon his arrest, let appellant offered to show the Police the actual owner of the goods - wheice he took them to 4th appellant. I accept the story of the Police that they came to associate 4th appellant with the crime on information of 1st appellant. If 1st appellant knew nothing about thi goods it is unlikely he weuld have offered to show the Police the person he claimed to be the owner. It is also unlikely he gould have, implicated 4th appellant if 4th appellant had nothing to do with the goods in question According to 1"14.7 and 8 all the appellants were in a group that accompanied 1st appellant on )is arrival at their house with the r3tolen goods. And on the facts on record it was lot and 4th appellant who led the Police to the place whore the 3 other appellants were reportedly hiding. It was hardly five hours after the event, at Nbozi, that lot and 4th appellant led the Police to the hiding place of 2nd, 3rd and 5th appellant. I entertain no doubt at all that the appellants were all connected in one way or the other with the stolen goods. /3 poupqsns punct& tzzj sup not' utq.Tm It'TCIS01j tvç poq uc sum OH °°Tra 01 19, 09, Sçtj. U04UOti .OU PTID oq pctrçt'-[cIXo OH 00 1- 1flJt'tt 01A11 71t, 1s0 TXVTl01 Otfl. p.It'OL[ i ( 4QflOi7t111 °H ttT0TJTtPT 0.1IO3 )tTT.IflOAt'J UOO.I poq STtT UT Or1b?V upq eioq - ot'j Aq qut'ocIct' qs. JJT.tI 3 pT PT-p.i'ti ut pçJspts rsit' U0 i 000a q ;utIIddt' tq ptrc oj q ;ut'I1citt' .St.. 3TW°PT pp otj t'qq. put' ;flJ 2 tiO P'-t' D1t'tI3j 30 orcu n pt'q ctt t'q cToq 30 ioutto oe. - j poAfloq moo aDMOT eti. pt'oq sp uo trtt DUTPLMOM snoços 'tJut'd t t[p 'ct 3jThIS put' tio.i poq sTq po.uo ottouc , ot1q, smt .trcIIed(It' qs. pps GH t1° Et'! qt'tq. dtr3l Otfl. 3) pit' )tfl. tfltt 11Lt'I0ciCft 30 0D3 Ot 't'E t OTq_MlCTa@ °H t'TTTA Y0fl)J STIT Oq o. pouoddt'ti OtM SO OOTOA I- ) T3TlUPT OAt'tI oq. petTçt'10 013 OH I0AT1000J tit'ircIcIt puZ put' ;o sorit'u oq o. no PeUx 4 T-lo"p1m fl3t'tt0jj ptrc 11t'io TTt'0 SM)ttj -tfl pt' Ot CIOt[S Otfl. 3C .13 U1%1 0 OL13, (4 7ttfl)009t' PM7 0sGT;Tq.Lmnb OXt'[ tIOUS Ut put' - qt?u )ut's oti; Spumil po?ut'to a&t'tT qssocI qou p1nom spoc? OU trçu.xou tZPk0TT0J Ot. p9AOZ4OJ )Ut' 9,tpTu Sn0iAOId et[. U01(4S amom Spo2 Otfl. .xoJ '000x Aq.pi otou uooq ot'q qou proik £u4 opall. tjons 'tot s OaOm seomq.stmorço NI 'opooz .&qr o seAoçq T-0%010 otp. I014T0 srit-ae& Soijj,•spoJi? @L11. jo uoTssossod 0t1130 Otfl. .10 Oil Moil Ci. st' anal. oq - qssod pinoo t'tj uoTctroTctxo Aut OtION ;i.toti 'rrcs etj. JO tIO oAoçq. •tUr40U 8t[4 0'J tfl O.IOM .&ota t'tq. q.aq s.1OAT900.1 TV ton woq JtqTSSod OAUtt ou pno suTTodcft oq; piot osp i uoTossod scL1 out 3Cr30 spo? ot. tot o. s' ucc.t'utIdxo o.tmbepv o&t'? notjq. Jo ouou qvt; vi°tt .xnoo ioioI aTio, s.ot'J atio, uj S.IOATO 00.1 .&q.IrrL9 axon o so.oitjq. TUT4OU et. t.o e.ioi qt't osoit' t.tnvu i'xn UT uoiq±rnsozd t' ucçssossoct rçotq. oqtrç eut'o spoo2 04 sU uot; jo uU UO.1J uoTUtrt'Tctxo oqt'qd000t' ut' jo 'o.1ojaxotfl. 'oouosqt' ot. U] .oti; otq. .ioqjt' San")TT i'toj t' iUO j4aodoad u 0 1c4s °ttq. J0 tiçssossocI UT ptmo; O.1Ot s.trcITocIcIU 9 01 10, rEt' 440p ott aq tro O.191 pOtZflflO 5U08120.1 .103 PIM E)SU0 ST111, JO seouUstrn0.1T0 9tt. tI -4- In ray view that is a reasonable explanation for the omission. If PW• 4 meant to lie ho would as well have said ho saw all the five appellants inside the shop. For he had travelled in thc same tok with then all from Mbcya to Mbozi knowing full well that they wore the ones in whose possession the otolenoods were found. I hold also that PW.4 did hear and ident±fy the voice of 5th appellant. The evidence of PW.4 clearly lends weight to the conclusion that the appellants could not have been were receiverso Thr. were the actual thieves and I so conclude. The thievos used threatening words to the would_be occupants before entering the shop most probcThly to instil fear in their minds. They then smashed the door open to gain entry into the building. 5ty finally wounded the ownxir/coLl:lainarlt rondring hii:a unconscious - before driving away with the goods. The facts clearly establish robbery. Accordingly I would tsniss the appeals against conviction. As for sentence - this was a highly aggravated type of robbery. The appellants seriously wounded tIle victim with a doadly weapon - coi-mitted rendering kin unoensci ous • The crime was in a at night. Further, apart from ransacking the shop they caused dnnago to the building by smashing the dour open with a big stone. Appellants arc very lucky that i1tI.4 survivdJ I take into 0 ;nsideration also that rubbery cases are on a mounting scale in that part of Mbeya R0 gion. With all these fact.rs in mind i cm persuaded tu think that the sontence of 8 years Imprisnnont on each is inadequate - the appellants being lot offenders notwithstanding. In the circumstances the appellants roust sh0w cause why the imp is d sh uld nc,,t D. 2 c N. J. - l\U.KIBETiii Father dead. An the only chid. - surviving him. h Mother old. Have three children of ny orn. One of my children died this year in ioy absence4 remand for this case. Pray for leniency. N. J. TITAXIBPT /llji7 JUDG:d -5- SENTENCEg After study of the statemenof all the appellants I am satisfied none has shown good cause as to why the sentence imposed should not be enhanced. Accordingly the sentence imposed is enhanced to one of 10 years imprisonment in respect of each one of them. N 2 • N\AKIBETE 21/3/79. JUDGE, 51.