19841011 TZHC Mbeya

'III :icn COiL.T OP TANZANIA • ____ _, .._,ELI~ JTE JUhISDICTI0i (I.nloYJ1 HY;GI ii TRY) CPLnIIILL [... PEAL NO • 81 OF 1984 OP.IGIUfL CiIFaNAL CASE NO. 92 OF 198 3 OF TIDI i)IUCT COURT OF VfLNA DIiTRICT ..T itOI S NEDFJON 8/0 AISONCOLI .• . 1''11LI31 VTR%US rt- fl • Tr,T C .L..J V.UJ tJ ••.ö•I.•d•,.Ø.*O...Q..• 1 )T ''TI'T ( l CHARGE; STEALING: Contrary to section 25 of the penal code, DM11, J: The appellant was convicted of the offence of stonl:.n.; o.s.265 of the Penal ode and ias sentenced to three yearst irarisonucut :jct to fo confirmation by the 11igh 'ouxt. lie is now a;.ea1in against conviction and sentence 1 There is no merit in this app.oal. On re-evaluation of the evidence it is clear that the appellant was sn at the hotel where the complainant SaaotMbnela was eating. Then the anpellaat with five thorn caused some confusion in the hotel and ran outJ.th the L1oner of tc. cca'lajl2ant. He was seen by1 Chrietina hwmLa h?. 2 dividin; the stolen money with the othes Eventually the com 1ain ni with kin sarch iartr came to where the appellt with his partT wan and on seeinh thori the appellant took to his eels. 11e was however arentecI after a successful chane and found with His defence of oinC to the river to bathc and then 'run •j 1om the river does not hold water in view of the strong prosocution case. I therefore dismiss h.:?: P 2l aaiaot conviction. 1ith reGard to the appeal against $entence am not aersuadod that it is oxcorisive for the money stolen is ubstanti:5l, namely h.69 9 000,:. I dismiss it also. The appeal faUe in its AT 1BEYA, ---------- A. 3A11AT1, 11th October, 1984 JU'DG. OGurt: Judent delivered in Court on 11th Octohr, 1)(34. Mr. Teern1, for espondcnt Appellant -- Li)seflt. . • • • . --.•,- ......... - -- 55 d .JLI, \ 'JUDG.;. 11.10.1934 '