19791219 TZHC Tabora

I H-C IN THE HIGH CCUhT CF TANZJ.NL iT, TJBORA APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Tabora Registry) CRDINAL APPEAL NO.106 OF 1 97 6 cf.Cr.App.107 of 197 6 0RIGINPLCRflINAL C/SE NO.53 OF 1976 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF MPANDP. DISTRICT AT MPANDA. BEFORE A. YOHEDI Esq. DISTRICT !!GISTPPTE ABEL DICKSON & PNCTHER.... •0o• . . LPPELLANT VEPSUS TE REPUBLIC. .... ........,........RESPONDENT CHPRGE Robbery with violence c/s 285 and 286 of the Penal C ode. JUDGNENT rUSHI, J. The epe11ants, BEL DICKSON — 1st appellant and K/TAG/Lt YZIIK — 2nd Lppellant, %ere charged with the offence of robbery with violence c/ 285 and 286 of the iena1 Code end iiere sentenced to seven years imprisonment. They are appealing against both coilviction and sentence. The two appeals have been consolidated, the The prosecution evidence was toeffect that one T2auridi Jumanne'- PW.4hd gotie to drink in a certain pombe shop.This haulidi was with Hamisi Luhinda — P.W.5 At the pombe place P.WOk saw the two ppellants who were with another person as well. P.i,.4 left the pombe place at about 10.00 p.m. Is he left the place the appellants also left and follo'wed him. A short distance from the place the the appellants started attacking the complainant and tok away Shs.900/- which the complainant had kept under his unoerware. The appellants ran away when they saw Hamisi approaching the scene. Both appellant's denied the offence and denied to have been at the pombe shop that particular evening. The grounds of appeal are identical. They complain that the complainantand Haniisi just imagined their fates and say that they saw them at the pombe place merely because the appellants were known to both 61 them. The appellants state that the complainant and Haniisi could not remember the people they saw.b.ep,ause of alcohol. Further the appellants say, that Hamisi — P.W.5 'told lies that he saw them run away from the scene just to please the . . . . . . . /2 ' the complainant because he had bought him pombe. I uin the two grounds of appeal completely baseless. The complainant and Hamisi cpnn:ot just say that they saw the appellants at the pombe place if infact the appellants were not there. The appellants have. not' suggested any ground as to why the complainant and Harnisi should mention them if they were not at the place.0 The learned trial magistr&te believed the evidence of P.04 and. P.1,1.5 to the effect that they saw the appe'ilnt:at the pombe shop. According to the evidencethe appé1l&ntf9ll'owed the.cornplainant ime diately he left and, the attack on the complainant occurred a 'hrt distance frón the place.' 'It is also in evidece That there was modn light. The trial magistrate found that the ap1e,li'antS. were identified by i.w.4 and P.5. On the evidence, the trial court was justified to come to that finding and I have found nothing in the memorandum of appe'1 or On the record which can make this court ipterfere with the finding of the trial court. 'h"a'ppe'a1 a&airlst conviction is.ccor1ingly dismissed for both appellants. RgarditIg the sentence of seven years imprisonnjent imposed on the appellants A-2 It the minimIm under the law.Ph ,appeal is thus dismissed in its entirety. ',---- N.I. MUShI, JUDGE. 19/1 2 /79 19/12/79 Co'in N'i _k. J Appellant 11 bsent Tr. 1assaba $tate Attorny. J u dL.gme h1 read in Chambers. 1 1 Th. I f (3 S I