19820427 TZHC Mbeya

: '••;.- • .- ,.• ,,.. . .. ., .,,, •. • •1 -• . .. .' Th•. -ì .. . -. ..-. ... ... 'çsuoo.:.:¼tio fZOttS T& ? 4TJ btu OU peo pt?- tI0t!I$4S t of eM';u?rEGctth pe;seizr eq. '.uti'rcturooT -li sçtjq. jo t2u0s txO- 'j - flf tzo peqsoo:.çt- utoj eoq. . uoq.pt ;qç ; - •pethoop. osod. trç uqLjj. e.iat spuTTaddu oLlq. torqt 'q.io jo piet v 9,,e poq.trçod .uuTthuoo 9T4 flOO .XO!.t01 Otfl. PIO. e}j SSOLI 0T4 p99JJ OLIM 10 P.T T RI etc1oéa 'alqq. joteqwom o q po2Ioqoztoo sLabi sso noq £xoq.s eu sseu.pt .&q Lumal—TToM 6 stt s um l. UrTTGcTdvpuooes eu. e.xet suDocTcI Xct. zeq.St Puo pw ,atçj. StI4Q1. -teS O p3TAVO9 $ZO .4cat OLfl. JO pue 8t(1. 'eo jo pet PU-1ATzcP .et..et{W suTtetd12 etfl. q.eui eq uotq.oflv ruuj aqj o. uTo Er3Met{ 16 6L6i- 'i rnv uo .oejje etq oq sum SUOMTTs 9 l, st &ueT.Ia 'UOT;flOeSOxd eq, aoj.eouepe eAi (eçrtr snTtnr) luPTt 0ddv,TsaTJ 3qq if 'urqsj,j vA9uTso,9M euo ' zupIcIuIoo a jo.&iecIb.icI 014 si (q.steq otti.) q.ç tfl. ;oj eq. ptz .sieq eq. jo .jeqq oqq. qtioqu a.ridsTp ott ueeq trp.q ezeçiq. eqq UOT.Senb ctçotrçid eq. si sçt uo- senb uç jo pet ri et.n JO UOTSeSSOd UT PUnOj SrMtf!. jo oqe zo 'sq.uadcI aq4 ote fueuruospxIurç OAJ JO UX8. U O. pootto.ue8 Sum, tO09 pu 'epo C) Tvu;g cl aqq. Jo g93 pue ggF, 'S O. .I1tOO 'jOtfl ei.;o jo peqouoo axei& s.uUedd etq. Sqazcoqm r2uTzcl jo tnoo eq. jo uoTsoep uio.xJ eau 'peposuoo e4sq i .qop 'sjedft oi. oatj .m 'j 'r,i1yvs 0*Q0Gb000000*01*00000000Q1000 1LNBctNOdI D]rIflJTJld aILl SflSt9A I I 0 0 0 I I I I I •0 0 4 0 0 0000 I ' 1L1rVtTIaddV InInII sn.i'in.r - (VONIHI WV 6L6t J o Lo 0N IEVO 'wrn -.Ini3 nIvNIoIHo) 0G61 io Nouoirsirrir aTIrdav VAt2I WV Ij.'IVZNVW do LHL103 HJflI1HW NI did, of two short sentences.. It was couched in the following words: ttQ 31/7/79 I left home for Kibogolo to see my uncle. I passed by the Fuvu auction on 1/8/79 where I was a2rested 0 " The second appellant also denied, at least by necessary implication, that he was found in possession of the head of cattle in question, he admitted to have visited the Fuvu auction mart on August 1,1979, but claimed that he did so for the sole purpose of purchasing a sickle. In their petitions of appeal the appellants have attacked the lower courVt decision from several fronts, but I think none of those criticisms can he used by this court for faulting the decision One of the points raised is that the head of cattle in question was not produced before the trial court as an exhibit. This assertion is perfectly correct, but I am not disposed to think that the omission affects the validity of the inpuned decision. The law is, I think, well esta blished on this matter. As general rule the best evidence rule has no application to the admissibility of evidence of things. The noproduction of a thing which is the subjeotmatter of court proceedings goes only to the weight and not to the admissibility of the testimony concerning, or to# it:• ee Luca&vWilliums & Sons, c18921. Q Heckini /Ah1quist I Brothesj Ltcl, 3947 2•,:A.11 E,R, 722; ant: Edwd s/.o;Petro v..R.:{1967) n. 296, ctsowhich.fr Saffari for the p1ic,.drew r.y attention Ia:, This- i, of c:ourse a.gee1 rule,. but:-none of:: the ecog sed.:ccep.tions to it aplIs to th-àsét• nOW.: hhii oniderati bn It is riot. d ffeuit: to:. seek. the .1eas bi whyrthe lW: does-not as- a general rule, inCict on the iroduction of things at a trial. .:Beoaue: ar.witness olains that.hi travelled:tö Peab ship.j:t'wnuLber a]estird .to -insist. on Ihe'prpchictionoi the es:eltOt.. the ho,lding of al-view: of, itl - . .1 t would- be Cven hore :absird. if:::in -: tri.l fpr.:nurdere-.th- law inis ted on the poduetioe of the:. deceatedts body,.; &th common: .seneand logic robel..against -thb idea:thht:.there s:1ould h: such a-rul:eini our 1w Te lw may not aiways be a leial sctnee, .. but it has nbt -failed_ to..recogniC.e that hcpurabyiahpu-t. ±hings- i usually- ls important than the- exact: text of : . dounen± 1 It laysldown-T that it: is. hot. necessary to mecount far the non-producbon;duc of a: thing before .cthCr evidence of it my -be given. :. Since, in: thaI case now at the Bar, .the: .owncrahip or: identifioati:ohiof: the heat of: cbleiwsnptin issue, :1.. cannot tee; how. th f thc beas.t coukd .plossibiybe rheld to b fdts1oithe lciwer its- eoisiôn, In,iy ucT.gent Q fl9Q(l. omasequonca. that the. loarne. trial magistrcte dici.: not .s..ee;the head::.of: cattle.. 1 ) ••• I -. :. .• - •. -•- . - :• ...... :.: .- .: ........... The appellants suggested no reason why the first appellant's nephew should have given false testimony against them. There is nothing on the record of the case to warrant this court suspecting, leave alone concluding, that the witness had an axe to grind in this case. Even if there were some misunderstandings between the witness and the appellants or either of them, there would still be the evidence of the member of the guardian of law who effected the arrests for the appellants to grapple with. I respectfully aee with Mr Saffari, that neither appeal against conviction has any vestige of merit, the doctrine of recent possession having been properly applied I have no doubt in my mind that the guilt of the appellants was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the law, The appeals against sentence are also without merit. The sentence each appellant received is the minimum prescribed by lawg see S. 5(0) of the Minimum Sentences ict, 197 2 No court has even the semblance of power o reduce those sentencos The appeals are disnissed /