19820318 TZHC Tabora

- IN Tt{E NIáJ4 CCURT OF TANZANIA AT T.ABORA APPELLATE JURISDICTION I (Tabora - .Re.gsry) (NC) CRIMINAL APEAL I\TO. igo OF 1979 ORIGINAL. CRIMINAL CASE NO0 545 OP 1977 OF THE DISTRICT COUT OF STLJITT\YANGA DISTRICT AT SHINYHGA - BEFORE CHP.B,RU1A Esq., DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ''- JOSEPH NATU JILALA APPELLANT (Original Accused)'' versus THE REPUBLIC I-DESPONDENT (or igin'al Prosecutor) JUDGME N T - -GHIPETAJ. The appellant, Joseph Natu Jilala, was charged with and convicted of the offence of robbery with violence C/ss 285 and 286 of the Penal Coae and was sentenced to eight years imprisomnent 'e now appeals ..The'pros:ec-tuin's evidence 5 in brief, was. as foliows at.abou 2.00 a.m. on 29th October 5 1977-. the complainant, Mär'- Emanuel (P.w.i) and a girl called.' Salima SelGniaii (P.W.2) weraroused from sleep in P.W.l's house by sound of a gun within her'pre3ni.ses. She thn stood up, laid her baby-on, the-bed, took out a 'long knife and courageously took. her position behind the bed' 'oom door. Just then, she heard the door of the sitting-room being forced open. \Vhen she peeped through an opening in. the door, she saw a àn' whom she identified, with .the aid of.a.lamp that was in the sitting room, tobe the appellant. She Saw the appellant put off that lamp and m&ing for the bedroom door.. inthè.berbmhthe was also a lamp which was on.' She raised the knife so as to slash him. The culprit, however, was quick to notice hei'. He seized the blade of the kriife and in the ensuing struggle over the knife, the culprit sustained cut wounds on both hands which started to bleed. Thereupon the culprit seized a "kitenget •1 '.,,1-.- - ...................'I - -' '. - ,. .... .2 - -2- which P'.l was wearing and he used that to cover his bleeding hands. It was then that'P.TT,l raised an alarm and escaped from the house through a rear door. Neig hbours gathered, but when they tried approach the house, the culprits threatened to hoot them if they went any nearer. After the bundits had left, P.W,,l went back to her house with her neighbours only to find the house in a mess with her property threwn about and blood staina were a 1 .7 the ee. Missing from the house were a radio and a torch. Lucas Kisenha who is PV.l's htsband, had, beeñ'away to Shinyana during the night of the 'robbery. Next moing, he was informed of -the robbery while still at, Shinyanga anhe reported the matter to police. A police officer (p;74) visited the scene on 29th October 1977., There he saw a huge stone whiôh had been used in breaking the door, open. He then took the knife which P. 7 .1 said she had used and a--kitenge, the half pair of he kitenge seized by one of the culprIts.' Meanwhile, 'and as fate would have it, the appellant went to Kolandoto Hospital for treatment of cut wounds on his hands. . '. On 30th October, 1977 a Dr. Pilhada Qf the hospital was on routine duties., As he conducted rounds in wards, he saw the appellant surrounded by nurses. The doctor, observed that the appellant's hands were wrapped in pieces of cloth and the nurses were dipping hi hands in some water. Noticing' that the wounds were :f a serious nature, he ordereathat the appellant be taken to the theatre. In the theatre, the appellant told Dr. Mhada that he had been assaulted by a group of thugs who had. robbed his money.. The doctor then told the appellant that he would inform the police, but the appellant said he did not waht police interference until he had recovered. Meanwhile, police- had 'received 'information that •a man was being treated for cut wounds in his hand'- 'in Kolandoto hospital. A team of police, officers then rushed to Ko,landoto- Hospital. .., ' ..;.' . . ..:. . . .. ,/3 w . -3.- Just as the doctor waspreparinig himself to go into the th'%tre, the police arrived and told him that the patient then in the theatre (i.e. the appellant) was a suspeet. When the doctore went into the theatre and told the appellant that there were visitors who wanted ta see him, the appellant.. became vorried and only reliictany agreed to see the said visitors. The police officers then arrested the'appellant. The doctor then showed thepolice officers a w6manwh had.a basket and who had claimed to be the wiTh of the appellant In it was found a torch wit.h.initials L.K. *hich P.W..2ubsequeitl identified tobe that stolen from his house P w. 4 also noticed that the piece of cloth with which the appellant's hands had been wrapped was idntica1 with the kitenge he had seized from P,W,l. Subsquently,P,w,l idëhtified theappellänt as the culprit who broke into her house and whom she cut with the knife. In his defence, the appellant said that he took his cattle to a cattle aucttePwhere he sold them. On his way home he was robbed shs.650/= by two, thugs and in the course of that struggle he was out by the blade of a knife of one of the robbers. He was taken to FOlandoto hospital for treatement and there he was arrested. The learned magistrate carefully evaluated the whole evidence. He accepted the prosecut±on's story and rect.ed that of the defence. He then concluded that the prosecutoin had proved its cs.oc to the hilt. I can see no reason to impun the learned magistrate's findings of fact and the inferences he drew therefrom. There was eloquent evidence, both direct and circumstantial. P.W.l said that she saw the culprit fo' about fifteen minutes in lamp light; the appellant was found in possession cf the stolen torch which was clearly identified.; he was aL.o found in possession of P.W. l's "kitenge". Tocrown it all, there was the damning evidence of the nasty Qut wound which fully corroborated P.W. l's account. I ii Clearly 9 therefore, the appellant's story could not have been anything other than a ridiculous, afterthought. The conviction, therefore was fully justified. As to the s&.tence, I do not think the appellanthas reason to complain. This was a bad case of robbery. Indeed, it iswi -th reluctance that T have refrained from calling Ofl the appellant to show cause why it should not be enhanced. The sentence of eight years imprisonment will also remain u.rdisturbed, and as the same requires confirmation by,this , court, it 1-s hereby confirmed. In fine this appeal is dismissed inits entirely, • B.D. XUET 1'' t7C-E •.