19800206 TZHC Dodoma
F U IN THE HIGH COURT OF T.MIZANIA. APPELLATE. JURISDICTION CRININAI APPEAL No • 186 OF 1978 (of. Crim. App. 1O/7 1 • HALIDI IDDI -AppellaAts 2. MAULIDT RADHA1II ) riiJ. Acused.a) versus THE REPUBLIC. . . . . ' Respondent (0rigina1.Pr6s.ecuto±) Chare: House breaking and stealiil.g c/a.2.94(1) and 265 of the Penal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19800206 TZHC Dodoma
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 6 February 1980
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
No structured case brief is available yet for this judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
F U IN THE HIGH COURT OF T.MIZANIA. APPELLATE. JURISDICTION CRININAI APPEAL No • 186 OF 1978 (of. Crim. App. 1O/7 1 • HALIDI IDDI -AppellaAts 2. MAULIDT RADHA1II ) riiJ. Acused.a) versus THE REPUBLIC. . . . . ' Respondent (0rigina1.Pr6s.ecuto±) Chare: House breaking and stealiil.g c/a.2.94(1) and 265 of the Penal Code. if U D G H ENT .. NAIIiA. J. The two appellants, Halili Iddi and Naulidi Ramadhani who appeared before the District: Court as the firét and second accused respectively which descriptions Ishallretain in this •judment, were • charged with, and convicted., of, h.oisebraking aid. •,tealing contrary to sectipns 294(1,) and 265 of the Penal.Code. They were and nine imprisonment. respec.tiveiy,, •entencee'. to ziin conourren.tly.: • .• " On 7/7/78, PW.1 Zainbu saw the appellants at her house. The pellant'sasked..'or.,atey,toone room inthe house 'ened toone of'Zainabu's tenan'ts.. ' Zainabu did not have the key. The appellants went away.. ; .On 8/7/78 at 11a.m. PW,2 Hisabu.Roberb went' to Zainabu',s house and. found the two appellants in. one room in the house. Zainabu 1 s room was to quote the record of the D.stric Cour, ."intact',, Zajnabu said that she padlocked the door before she left the rooms In the evening she found the padlock " missing and.on. entering her room she found out bhat' cash Shs.32001= was stolen. She reported to neighbours including PW .2 . Eisabu, .. . The most important witr].eaes for the Prosecution were Pr1.3 Bamisi aelemani and ,P'i.4 Abdallah Jurna who said that on 8.7.78 when they went to Zainabuts room to deliver bottles of ghe, they found the two appeUa.rits at the door ani. that the lt accused was . ........• ',,', S .. •... .C'L':'. -' . •. . . . .. ..... ..........- , holding cash in his hands. The first accused told the wite. ..thát Zainbi had gong oni safari and the witnese' gave the bottles to the appellants so -- that they could be delivered, to Znabu. In-3tb.e evening when Hamisi went to the house to collect the empty bottles, he found a.narr5bip1ained of her monoy having been stolen from her room. U The appellants denied the i'rea aying that as businessuen they bad more moi.cy tnan what they ae alleged to have dolen. deferco witness Juma Abdallah said he sa1w the ap 1 ellants on 8..78 when they delivered onioi"to him, , -• .. The evidénce of J.3 Hamisi and ,P...4. Abdallah is crucial in thiscaëé. These are the witnesses who claimed they saw the appellants at the àomplai-. nant' s house on the day of the alleged commission. of the o±fences. They said the appellants were at the door. and 1st acckxséd was holding currency notes.:in . his hands The learned. Defence Counsel submitted that it is inctheeivable that. the appellants would have broken inio the house steal the moneyand then stand at the door holding. casb in their hands. Mr. Chambakare said. that th e7Jdence of these two witnesses is oo good to be true, But •as submitted -, by the. learned•State Atoriy, the app.ellnts were * not at the door waiting. T1 ey cere in the,.c;oiirse of stea]i'ig. It was by c1iiaic cily that W3 Hamisi and PW,4 Abdallah sawthem cn arrival at thpreniises. I uould not accept the Counsel for the appellants' submission that the evi.denoe of Haniisi. andAbda1lah is too good to be true. Th e witne. ss e . sd1d not biow the appellants before. Thè.r gave an acco,vnt: O: what they saw when they arriiTed.t the.coapl,inant's house. The witnesseshad n reason to suspect anything S. • and so, fter delivering thr bottles of ghee, they went away. The appellants' cotnp....te denial does not.c.st any doubt on the evidence. Yhe evidence the two witnesses Hamisi and Abdallah and that of FW.2 Hisabu wbo.had seen the appellants in, the preis..es earlier , that day, fully supports the tindings of the trial court. The f ... that the appellanta ould have more money. -. th have been stolen, does not mean at they were not the thieve The senteices are In aciordace with the law. The appeals are dismisscL W J, 1V1.Lk JUDGE DODOMA 6th Febru.ary 1980 Mr. Aliinwike, Senior State /Gorney for the Republic Mr0 Mbez±, Counsel. for the .(peliant.