19810331 TZHC Mwanza1

L - 4. ptq qtrttTtdwoo 8t4 O.XItIM TT 4OUUO I TCTOCI OMT @ LU ,Os tflTM ueq pm, pesrioo 'ornt eq. ir zoop joq aiq Aq es -noTT s uutduioo euq. woxj • UEq MnC Puq a ji tJ1p — OCt httOOo T )U OtprJ P tflTM enot tiutwcTwoo 9tfl. WOJJJ9noo n- I UtM OOU3 2 tfl. JO siujjd utwoô 91fl ir o o puedthq i P U T. U9AG fl- trç '9L61 6.xeqo00 LTT tIO —:qorb i pup 'snt jocTj triow OttM 'TOO 14 0 1:3 awrs s qfl. JO ITth1CT s ç•pi jo uowtso, u -r puno; EVtM J9m suP aql ,SOWTJO O; 9q -tsuocIe.x srm o T4m 'SPM 'eo ut uotquuoo Jo O a CqnS o ST T@M R UP GSOT1M 'uotsnb '8uiooJnst0 971. ;ouo Ut P 9 uOPu Pq. V PtfllOJ SM OtpiJ otj• OJJJtt1. U9TO pU uooto STlq PUP oTpI STtj ptre out uoxq uq P IP IT eS TIOIT s -nt 'tfl. PuTJ O TIO •U1d Tioqr q oic 9WrO qutuT!?dwoo 9 qT 9 e puszr 5114 tb pU '35fl014 5114 P 97 00T W1tbTTdWOO ai1q. '•w'cI ç u -rp 53J0010 ptz 14OM pU 'UMOp UtqWto 5M 100140s Jw1J nunujj •'sa14oeJ IootTo iWTJ oq eJM quc pu ULI1TdWOO e llq. 't It1 Jfl0O JM0T E14 Aq ptIllOJ sr soeJ G uT4of o/p V UVTPJSA çi- 559t1tM G A SOWTP e 7T JO 1OJA GiTT UT.UIT 5 UO 'UO14OIAUOO SUT5 P9Tdd 5LJ et Ulttt Aq tIIOS [I EW UGOTttO 81fl. JO; 'uut?1dwOo etn oll = I L~ - sTTS 1cd posnooe piss 'qq. JEJO uoisudwo S SSM 'seetr UO 2 UiMOTTOJ PUT iViuenouoo UT1J seOtIueg UflOO pU 110 t1UJt1OS1J(Wt StJUOW 9 IYI9Mq. pus 'qunoo sit; uo 'quwuostctwt SISOIc e GJtTT OT pouOqx.s SUM 1 S I. Ulloo pstjo OM. OtflUO SUOTOIAUOO POUJS9 UIAST4 l Pj rLqTnwp.XDj IJU14 'ustTocd r 'I1LLL1I 691 °d5( 9POD TSUO c.t o c9? s/o —gTtnoü ptx CTe • pO3 TPusd 9 t4 jo (i) f7 67 8/0 RU T~TPEIa O, — soi.• :uno T —gj140 • mnr (Jonoso.xd uito) upuoclsr •.•••...yoo.o otqrdtj (psrtoo1J I5UtiJO) ••" ° q.usTIOddV J14TMWN AJU14 9SJqsTs1j q.otJ4str '.b:t JOqEpt[ a joj s q MSJS qs otJqsç MJSX JO Jfl03 OTJSt Btfl JO 6L Jo L6z °r ess TSUIUJTJD It.1O 096T/17T °N TSOddT TSUTUYtJO -Xfl 0 O 14TH MOIIDIIJiflf JC447 • • I77J TOJ7iflOD PIH 71 111 • -• .• -' .*- •-•--------- -_..•--.r- -•-- — -•.- 1 •- - . V -2- been. Then I saw him heading for the bush, behind the kitchen. The aceased lives in quite a differnt house, from the complain.nt's. I can very easily identify the said radio, which was black in colour. It was not very small. It was of medium size (the witness identified the same). Cn the following day complainant complained, that some of his personal effects, have been stolen from his house. lie complained that, the articles that, had been stolen were a radio and a Sufuria. I then told him, that, I had been the accused with the said artiole." The trial magistrate, aiio in the record described the said witness as intellicnt and straight forward, rejected the defence denying personal involvement, in the crime and convicted the appellant. The appellant,, had in his memo of appeal heaped distrust upon Pl'I.3. He has without kindness attacked her, and has without shyness attacked the trial rnagistrate, for relying on such evidence. I have of course, taken the appe1iants bitterness with understanding, for nobody in good senses would like to make prison his habitat. but, that aside, where the crime committed fordes the hand of the trial court, to send the criminal to prison, all the court of appeal can do, is to test evidence, whether the offence ws proved against the said accused beyond rasonable doubt. Thus sentiments aside, my duty now is to see how justified are the appellant's complaints. The appellant would agree with me; that obviously that the complainant's house was broken into and a 'ac1io and chicken meat stolen therefrom, defies challang and equally unarguable is the fact that, the radio was recovered from one of the classrooms. The trial court after carefully considering the evidence came to the conclusion that it was the apaellant who committed the two crimes. Aithougri the appellant has unrelentlessly attacked the trial magistrate, or dutifully coming to the hated conclusion, there is an record nothing to show that the trial magistrate reached a. wrong conclusion. He carefully wighed the whole evidence, in. particular that of P.W.3. -PW.3 1 s testimony does .not need paraphrasing, •as it is straight forward. As the excerpt above shows, she saw the appellant coming from the complainant's house through the back, door.-. She saw him holding a radio and a Sufuria and heading towards the bush. . The Radio waslater found in the classroom and was identified by the complainant as his property. The conclusion and .a finding that for one to get the above items frOth looke.d house, - must first break into the said house, is the conclusion, that meets all the tests, of logic, and naturaihappenings of such events. ........./3 - 1 ,R$3--T- 3- A further conclusion and finding that, it was the appellant who committed • the offence, is also well established, by the evidence of PW.3. PW.3, a pujill she may have been, but she was found to be a credible witness. AndI find the trial magistrate was entitled to so find. He saw the witness and was impressed by her, and was satisfied she was telling the truth. Again I am satisfied that the trial magistrate did not apply wrong principles in his assessment of her. And I cannot imagine why and how a pupil could concoct such story, and a story of such dimension against her teacher. I am, as was the trial court sure, she saw all that she testified about. I am forced to conclude, that the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt to have committed the charged crimes. The appeal is therefore I dismissed. Delivered this 31st day of Hach, 1981- - u ----. -.\ A . w. }TITI 3'lst,Maroh 9 1981.p JUDGE • -, 'NI \ • :J' S -_-.- - '-I-