19830714 TZHC Mbeya

A- ~ IN Ti{ ii1Ci CuTIRT . • 11;L L LZ TuJRd SD I0TI911 •(Libeya Reistry) CRLLL Pi 10 119 OF 1980 • c/F. Cr.pt. 1o.120/1980 ., OR1GflJiL CRILILiL C3EIO 173 OF 1979 OF THI, DISTRIty OOiJT UF 13ri,YA DISTRIP AT IiYA '•. Before: P. Li, Mushi, iisq., Districi Magistrate. ZEi.DAYO .. ....... .....; PPELLAJT ........... ..'..... VERU3 TRRB .IC ........... .".i.i ....... .e,.... GHRGE: Robbery r4ith Vic1:co cls 8. 285 and of the Penal Coda, Cap16 Vol. I of the Laiis JuDGL..:T. JYR S. These arc dorso1idtei appeals frow five apeI1ants whd ete opposiri the cci:ici. of t1ju )istridt Court of iIbeya. They were bonvicted. of rohber aric ontenced to seven years ipr18onL:erit each. he story wai that iuri t'e night of 2/5/79 the cocip1aiiant i) z4 hi three •(. wives were sleeping in thair shop at Th.ijew. Bobbers brkintb the P#h op and routed it. They carried many brand new articles froni thóp. T1e police were inform.d and iwestiations strte. Upon infàtat&n received, Sgt. Major Rapiae1 (PW.5) stopped a bus somewhere andn. the first appellant in there b He was in pose€sion of a uaçk which, on opening it wazi found to ocntain 8 brani new blankets, f1e 3ir$ 1• trousers and 1.iany other small items of various kind. The o)4e+mr. (pw) also searched the house o the 2xd appeil.ant and seized A bra4 new stove. He suarched the hoxse of the 3rd .ppe.1ant and seie&e nw blanket, soaps, pacl:ets of match boxes and pairs of socks. the house of 4th ar'ie1lantand seized twe itew sufurias, paeke4 tr cigarettes and uatch boxes and a carton of tea 1eaTes. It appe4A nth1n was found with th 5th appe1cnt. In their defence., th6 first ae1.ant said nothing abot. 8 blinkets and five pairs trouaers found ir . possession. The 2nd appellant claimed ownership ot the stove nI desputed the the evidence of those who said they i&entifiod hitt 1i the shop. The 3rd. apl1ant also claimed ovnarahip oP. tie óod fod wit h him and cha:denged the evidence of identification. The 4th appellant gave the same defence as abové.' •Th? 5th appel).ant also desputed the evidence of Sinaha3a(PL2) Who said sho 1dr113if1ed him in the shop. The trial court convicted l fi'v. ppellan s (as ellas two others who d.id not appeal ana. acquitted another) Hence thepeals The issue is over the ideiitif.ication of the appellants The ' priplaanant (p\T i) said. he idez3tlfied thels't and 4th appellant. iis ,wafe Sanihoja (i 2) said .the identified the 1st, 4th and the 5th appellant gns (r 3) said she identifiëd the 1st, 2nd and 4th appellants .im1n (i 4) ai.d he ide1itified the 3rd Appellant. All the witnesses sp they. Ia ;r't.hse. a,pllants.. Thy.were'. their customers and frequented tar shop. In my vai there Was ample evidence to implicate the ls, 2ai, 3rd ana 4th. .ppellants, All of thA.. were found 'In' posasion of'.t'brcnd nc gocds.ó.th €rtye the complainant stocked in his shop. Thi LOidtJ th evid.?nbe of idenbification. As fbr the 5th apeli'uit, hL a ioont'iec1 by only one vitness (i-i 2) he fact that , no,thin s found with him rend ,~ ts the., evilonce of Ident.fication by this single '.;itns, fall shot of the 8 tandara required. In nclusion I dismiss te of the 13t\'2nd, 3r iid '4th i:3pollai their entirety. Thu appeal of the 5th ppellnt GoU r ey Co1ioia is allowe I quish his conviction and set aside the sentence0 -e shOuld bat.a libèty fOrthiith. • Mbeya .. . . , . .• .. •. A. 1 01 July, 1983 .0.j.. , ... . ..... . , . J 14" - ..... •''..: -. ':.- r- , . ................. ....-. -:.,. , ...: ' • ... .