19831104 TZHC Arusha
C c :. o j IN THE HIGH COURT O AJZLNIA AT ARUSHA. / APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 92 3F 1978 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 132 OF 1976 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOSHI AT MOSHI BEFORE: W. Nathan Esq., • .........DISTRICT MAGISTE.LE TUWATI:KIRENGA ........ versus The Republic ..... .. .. .. . ... ....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19831104 TZHC Arusha
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 4 November 1983
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
No structured case brief is available yet for this judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
C c :. o j IN THE HIGH COURT O AJZLNIA AT ARUSHA. / APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 92 3F 1978 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 132 OF 1976 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOSHI AT MOSHI BEFORE: W. Nathan Esq., • .........DISTRICT MAGISTE.LE TUWATI:KIRENGA ........ versus The Republic ..... .. .. .. . ... . . .. .. . . . .RESP0NDENT J U D C- M E N T BEFORE: IVJLGAIGA, J. The appellant and a co-accused were convicted of cattle theft contrary to sections 268 and 265 of the renal Code. They were each sentenced to 5 years imprisOnment. His co-accused has not appealed against the conviction. It was overwhelmingly proved that the appellant was entrusted with a red bull to look after by the complainant. No less than three witnesses testified to this fact. It was also proved that when the complainant went to fetch the bull the appellant denied any knowledge of it. The red bull was later found slaughtered in a butchery. Since the appellant never claimed that the bull was stolen from his boma only one inference could be drawn, that is that it was the appellant who unlawfully and frandulently disposed of the bull. Such inference was irresistable. On evidence, therefore, the trial court propxly found the appellant guilty of theft of the bull. His conviction is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE 4/11/8 3 Appellant absent. Mr. Mtingele for the Rp11blic R BM/lk