19790510 TZHC Tanga1

. . . . cJUd tTOJUOS aqq. Sq puno SUM SMOO ueTos 3t ;o OtTO id qnoqt 9, U Up OUIU s e1J u 0 1OTOSOI.9M utctuio0 uqout, TIMO - 4uK eq. o. Pu- uo - eq StAOO 0M 'LL6T la aquicidge ptx ot. UO endsp Ou s eieqq sUlOGs l-T Pt1 ' etLI 0 14v OU IUdTouTla peuite T et[q. Sq eptw 5uOT5Iun Tp.xo ;eçxq aqj. put tq o. peqwqns iteckIr jo ulnprniiowow ot. JflOO JOMOE o4 jo queuipnC et. 'qinoo .Iep.OT etq. ul TUT.x otjq. gu pOonppt OOUOpTAe etJq J1Ifl;O 1 U3 pUUtUXO 3AUt TUdTouTt pOTLIUDI 'eITtteS -aDq Sq pouosoidez SUM oqnde et qnq Ttodclt STT 30 uc1 tetI etq, qt pouosedex eq xo .itoddt oq. qou poqoee ej 'xno3 sT!ql. oq Tuedcit sttjq. ooueq put eououes put uoiqotuoo etq iq poit SUM °H L6T 'qC)V seotietio S WflUITuT &fl. ieptrn qJIotZoSç.XdUIt 1SJteic OAT; O peoueques put peo-ç.uoo suM put epo TUuea et. ;o put (T)9 suoTqOes O icitqtzoo - q4et19. O4U3 T4 9,TM POJttJO SUM tiieddt et eiot OT 1 stC TUOPUVH TO qtflO3 otJq.5T etfl. tVç SOUtITT.1O Osto itedth TcuTTLrr.xo sTtL - .0 IT21 - NWflf 'epOo TtUea ot{q_ JO 92 put 997,stxOToes Ogr £xrxquoo - qjeiq. oTqq.0 (iOflOOOJ TUtZiTXQ) cIoarI : ::: oriannr HL (peonoov IUUTTXQ) vr]Iiav • eUBTUAI 'bsa 'IiaH •• (TuepuUHq.t • .oxqsi1 U,9uz,',T ;o qinO0 -oTxq.sT etfl •JO LL6I JO LI ON 0SU0 Tt'[ITUITI0 TUuTTXo) eL6I do 9 ON 'IVflT IIfNIWIEO 1rJ (Aq.ste tuu) VONVI IV :;VINVZWI I0 11 HflOO HDIH RHI NI w ' - 2-. tied to a tree in the bush together 'with two persons who managed to escape leaving behind one bicycle and an umbrella which \vere produced at the trial as exhibits... With regard to maters which are 'in dSpute in this ease, it was th'& pro scuti.ori case as laid out at the trial in the lower court that the appellant was one of two persons who had been witb the cowin.the bush, but succeeded to escape and ran away from the search party. On the other hand., the appellant offered tno defenc -e it his trial in the lower court but elected. -to ke.epilent as perniitted by law. The fir - potht for consideration and decision in this case is vhether the aupeUant is one of the two persons:who. were found with the stolen cow in the bush. Evidence was given by P.W.2 and P.4.5 to the effect that they were among the search party which went looking for the stolen cows, and that at one stage they were infonned that ahead.. of them there \,'ere two people with a cow. As a result, P.W.2 and P.W.5 went fast ahead of theQ .ther members of the search party a::d found two people. w-ith a cow tied toa tree. P.W.2 arid W,5 apprehended the appellant and interrogated him about the cow, with the result that, the second man who was at a distance from the appellant took that opportunity and fled. P.W,2 gave chase and the appellant took that opportunity to overwhelm P.W.5 and he also fled. The appellant was apprehended at his home on the 23rd September, 1977, that is, the following day. The appellant in his memorandum of appeal states that there is a possibility of him being mistaken for another person. -Purt - r:'ore, he wonders why he was not followed and apprehended on the same day. P.W.2 and P.W.5, however, testified th.t the appellant was well known to 'them before that day.. That being so, there was no liklihood for the appellant beir mistaken for another person. a. - 3-. As to the reason vthy he was not apprehended on the same day, it is obvious that the search party, after the :escape of the appellant and his colleague, had to take action to ensure the safety of the cow found in the bush. Moreover, there was no reason for great urgency in following the appellant who was well known to the search party and could easily be tracked later by the authorities. S On the evidence adduced at The trial, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant was one of the two persons who were found with the stolen cow in the bush. The next point for consideration is whether the appellant was involved in stealing the two cows from the National Ranching Company. Since the appellant was found in possession of one of the Stolen cowS in a matter of hours after it had been stolen, then by virtue of the Doctrine of Recent Possession the appellant is presumed to be the thief of the two cows, unless he gives a reasonable explanation as to how he came into possession of the cow found with him in the bush. The appellant gave no explanation at all but elected to keep silent. On the evidence, there can be no reasonable conclusion except that the appellant was involved in stealing the two cows from the National Ranching Company. He was, therefore, properly convicted. With regard to the sentence of five years t imprisonment, there is nothing that this Court can do, since it is the minimum prescribed under the Minimum Sentences Act, 1972 9 for the offence charged. In the final analysis, therefore, this appeal cannot succeed and is dismissed in its entirety, - ( F. L. N?ALALI ) CHIDP JUSTICE Delivered in Court at Tanga this 10th day of May, 1979, in the presence of Mr. Sekule, learned Principal State Attorney for the Republic, and in -the absence of the appellant duly notified. ( P. L. NYLMr) CHIP JUSTICE