19830823 TZHC Mbeya 1

INT} HIGH COT OF TANZANIA ft/c AT .MBEYA • APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1GH COURT CRIMINAL APPEL NO,780: 1982 (Original Criminal Case- of 181 of the District Court of Chunya District at Chunya Before-. Mwanagoda, District Maistrate) MAICARIOUS MWASHIUYA *0 • . .• ". .. ... b:.......APPELLANT versus THE REPUBLIC .O.O•....RESPONDENT Charge: Robbery viithviolenco c/as 285 aM 286f the Penal Code Cap.16 Vol. I of the Law.. MTJWIERA J The appell7llt vas Convicted of robbdry and sentenced to 8 years imprisnient. The facts as presonted by the prosecutirn show.1 that on 17/2/81 at 1 pam. afternoon the complainant was ing home frrn a place cI1od. Lupa. He was wearing his ath SEIKO 9 automatic. 1ie met the I appellant who •akod about the.time The o,)iaplainant told him it was 1 p.m. Suddenly the appellant grabbed him and they struggled. He managed to pull off the watch from complainant's wrist ñd ran away with it. The complainant rushed to. :the Katba - , o f that area and reported. The, official took'severál mambo and took to hunting the robber. They found himir]. u.s owrd by one Julius Mgwaya and queetioned him about th incident. He denied that he had anything to do *th the complainant's watch. After langthy interrogatio4a the appellant admitted that he had the watch. He led the Katibu. Zata and his party into the bush and took a Watch and surranderod it t. the Katibu. The complainant identified the watch as his. The appellant was charged accordingly. In his defence he denied that he stole the 2' watch. H'ic1 .t.was his own and produced a receipt No. 3047 dated 20/7,79 issued to him when he bought the watch. The trial magistiate dismissed the defence and declared the receipt as fake, He convicted and sentenced him as above. He has appealed. He argued that the complainant, the Katibu ICata and the mgambo framed him up. There was evidone of the Katibu Kata (PW) and his two mgam'bo (PW2 'and PW3) to the efoct, that the hunted for the appellant an& found him. After dialogus the alt ct'the ha D't1 atch, rI je. showed them wh'cG.had. hidden it. The cmp)ainan.t identifiQA, ,,4jia Wath as his. - The appel1ant' claim that it was ag-,Dwft was rightlyrojocted. If it was his lawful properr there could be no reason tQ hide it'. in the bush. And if he had that receipt aA the day he was arrested he would have shown it to toauthority 8nd 'would not iio boon sent to øurt. wag a fake receipt. The trial magistrate rightly cflvtted hiu and the sntonc was in order. The apoa1 ia dismissed in its entirety, F • A .1IRA At Mbeya JUDGE ' 23rd August, j983 ' 'H