19830811 TZHC Mbeya

-- - t -- - ----- 4q-c IN TBh HIGH COURT OF TiNZANLA. AT iJEhYA iiPIELLZE JtJBI DI CUN (Mbeya ReçLstry) CBILiINL ArPhAL NO. 66 OF 1981 C&MIS1111 0 6 01 2 5 OF 1981 OF TRE DI STEI T COURT OF DI STill CT T NriNDA ----- S Before: A. Nohamed, District eiagistrate. •- • EDTABD Ii'3ALAZI AND iilTOTIdi ,. ............... ANIELLANT VERSUS TI-B REPUBLIC ............................... RESPONDENT 2IRGi1 Robbery with violence c/s. 285 and 286 of the Penal Code. H. IJDC1T __________ • The two appellants were charged jointly for robbery, It was in eviden.a H that on 25/1/81, at about 10 pie, the conj;lainant (I -I.l) was returning home in company with his friends VhiQntino (F.2) and Oman (P.3). He was walking behind these two. Suddenly two ren confronted him. They knocked -. hire down and became unconscious. hi-ion he regained his senses he was in a ; C.C.M. Office. He noticed that his money hs.1,000/=, was missing from his pocket.. He was admitted to hospital. He said he had identified his assailants as thd two appellants. In their defence they denied to have robbed the complainant. Each of then argued that he was at home during the • material night. Tleir defence was rejected. Both of them were convicted and sentenced to seven years imi:nisonecnt each. The issue was the usual one, the identification of the culprits. There was evidence of lVJ.9 and 1h,3 who said they identified the two appellants as they at -ba'cked the cor.:p1ainant. Even the appellants admitted that they knew one anotherfor 3 years previous to the incident. There was na reasói why the witnesses should have framed up the appe11mn. I dLmis the appeals in their entirety, \ At Moyt, F. A. . • ,'---' p, 11th Jugust 1983 • - -• -4-