19830815 TZHC Mbeya2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF T2112lUT7 AT PPLLJJPE dm11 SDICTION (I1beya Registry) CRIlINL 1lP1aiL ITO. 56 o :L9821 7 ORIGINgL C NO, 171 OU 1982 OP THE DISTFJCT COURT Oh ChUTlL. DI hIRICT hT CiilThL. Before2 F. Namagoda, D.str.ict C gistrate PULOS/OLL1BTJL ........................ 1lFELLNT VERSUS THEREFUBLIC................. .............ESPONDETT H.RGE Cattle theft c/s.268 and 265 of the erol Oodê, Cap.34. -rTTT' The .;pe11ant was charged with cattle theft. TIOê storr was tha - on /9/80 bne bull belonging to the coiclainant was stolen He and his son started. to look for at They tracked the hoof tLarks into t14 appel1ant ' home. There they found uet a aha in the }ousc. On interrogation the appellant ola t ui t c,-z, people from I o vi.iJge had, brought the bull and elaughtered. i: there. he clunteexeJ, te ake the complainant to that dl1ago to show hire the roople who brou > T:r The bull for slaughter. There he ds unable to point anybody said to have brought the att],e. They returned. The further search revealed a shin dumped in the latrine pit. It was talon out. It was still fresh. Th appellant identified the skin by his rearks as well as the head. In his defence thQ appe11nt aried that the bull slaughtered was his ovm. That it had 'e bi -ttez by . a snake so he found it better to finish it before it died on its own s The trIel raagistrate rejected thu defence, convicted and senteiced hInt to five years imprisonment. There was enougb evidence as to identif ration of the 1ç1n and the head. nd if the appellant s defence was true why did he d the complainant to onother village ostensibly to show him the pee who brought the bull to his house? HEy did he dump the skin in thA latrine pit? He was rightly convicted end the sentence was the Llinim ,4M fixed by law. The apreal i: dismissed.. - I t iIfbey -a, • kL. ith L.uust, 1983 JUD. -j