19810225 TZHC Tabora

HIGH- COURT OF TANZANIA AT TABORA 1 1) IJUL j APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Tabora Registry) CRThINAL APPEAL NO. 36 OF 1980 - ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NC. 507 OF 1979 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF TA30RA DISTRICT AT TABORA Before: T. B. Iihayo, Esq., H/Magistrate. HERMAN ANDREW .................... APPELLANT (Original Accused) Versus THE REPUBLIC . ..................... RESPONDENT (original Prosecutor) CHARGE: Assault Causing actual bodily harm c/s 241 of the Penal Code, Cap16 of the Laws. JUDGMENT MusHi, J• tit- The appellant, HERMAN ANDREW, was charged and convicted for an offence contrary to soction 241 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. He is appealing against such aonviction and sentence. It is not disputed that the complainant, TAMASHA D/O SALUI. was assaulted and sustained injuries as shown on the P.F.3. The appellant adirits to have been one of the persons who helped the complainant to be taken home as her condition was not alright as she had been injured. There was however evidence particularly that of PW.2 - HARUNA RASHIDI who described in detail how he saw the appellant pull and push the complainant. PW.2 further - stated that he heard the complainant screaming. This N witness postively identified the appellant. PW.2 is 14 years. The appellant complained that the trial magistrate believed the evidence of P.2 without corroboration. There was corroboration from the other witnesses who testified on the same. The trial magistrate believed the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and he was Properly justified. The appellant has not raised any point which can make this court come to a different conclusion. LI (2) nviction was properly founded. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. On the sentence, the appellant says that it is high since he is a first offender. 11e also urged the court to take into, consideration the fact that he has a family. I agree with the learned trial magistrate that the appellant deserved a severe sentence. But in considering what type of punishmeiit to a';ard oie hao to take into account what effect the particular punishment will have on the accused and in cases of employees of Gove:nnent or Public Corporations, the Court should keep in rLlind, the fact that the accused will loose all the benefits. In some cases, the loss of benefits may affect the accused more than custodial punishment. In this case the appellant was a court clerk, and he will loose. all the benefits. Also in imposing the sentence of.three •S years, 'ho took into' account that the complainant was admitted for one month. The doctor has written to th court saying that the complainant was admitted for seven days. Taking all these factors into consideration a sentence of two years imprisonment would meet the justice of the case. The snténce of. three years is reduced to two years and except for the variation of the sentence, the appeal is otherwise dismissed. (.Sgd.) N. N. MUSHI,. JUDGE. - 25.2.81 Before: P. B. 1ihayo, D.I. Mr. Chaila for Republic. Accused: Absent - Unrepresented. Judgment read in Chambers. ( T. B. Mihayo, ) District Registrar. 3/3/81 . I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE COPYOF THE ORIGINAL. Thihay o,) -' 9rZT!ICT PEGISTRPR, -- 3/3/81.