19841012 TZHC Mbeya1

~_(c Ii TIrP ric r t3uT c: p t AP:'TJLT.0 JILD1CTIC. . . ( RT u) CRhiiIiJi L ] L NO 71 193 (OLICrI.'1LL CRjJJL Ci .;. 19u5 OF TIIfl Dt iiICt' cour OF T L ')1 iucm ic.iLA) / ANGor'ILE II1IEUY1JL 0 . f .• LT iTT 4 .- .. •. 'lEIISUS. . . TIlE Ri2UBLIC •. . 4 .. . Fti'3F0'i1TT CHARGE: ..CiJJIiiG GJI 7011$ }LLJ Contrary to secton 225 of the S ... - ::'-.f .J U:?) G 1 2•T• The apiellnt / L) ) jT JYULi who w b 2 1st ccus'd in t1e District Cou ws c c 'l 5 o thor acc u GU iath four counts of caus... JV'Ub i.r c , 25 o2 hc en 1. Code, Uc l was oonvictd of the Co gnate izo .ffc c ul ssa 1 c unnr oti ii bodily thar in the first count c/s.241 df'the .ona1 ti to ay aILn e of shj.1lin 1,5001= oi six nonth ip uont cfult. e wa cqiied in the secqnd court of tie )i once OL _ovc i ocLLly bart b i h w convicted in th 3rd coi.. of c' t ricvouE' ..' lj 1 rn i sc'tenccd to twelve 4 monthsT imprisoin.nt. atm ac-cvibtod in the fourth.comyt. The proseu±in c&e wa ft•L Ui1bn, , !iVa.Liio, P!a2':fld Chengelaga, P14.3 cfl 1L;iart.n, viere:cnt P .iodwn R!:, a Pinar3r Court Magistrate at 1pmnd to &:o and arest two neople tho were 5thnd 6th accused. in the ..istrict court, hoczi.ic they were al1oed to have dainged the houses of Jwrtn.jala •ThoDe?fore .YW.l, P.T.2, and 111.3, who had a warrant of arr t 'or liL 6h accusot i,cnt to iiii1i villaGe where the 5th and 6Tr' ac. 'Ccc lived. wo oicrnariod y , .3, "cey saw Mwashipa ti - c cell. 1 - 'aden :f tht'area and .tho the 4th.. accucd -at the 1ral Nrashi;ya too1: ±i.i:i th h 5th and 6th accused.hom thyi arrested arid hcwan taiii hc;n : t oX - nJ. :j1ar 0 ourt. On their wa/ td Ipinda whenthev ; . ..... - i1lao, i2ey iere intercepted.;by. peeh1 wie1diii :stic. eJ.lai-i10 vil1a.e :qhairnan.was thë..: :° leader of ±ari ,roi. in '' a5 1d r•1 .2 ml ._ at Langa village and freed the 5th and th P .1, ?W.2, and 1-W.6 escaped after beind asai1tod, ,7.3 wa o iit' and ean up. Ho was even stabbed with a krife and handcuffed. him On his back with a stick. -2 2 testified in bithat the appellant assaul kT3 also. testifiod how the appelint asked ~ 1,- him wiether he did not •mor thc't, the aol1ant wui the Chi'man and how the appellant th!i held 1uu aJ aed h.iu who had ive1i ther 0eraiss1on to be in the village. The jappellant tien tlappod h.iri dfld h later oidered the group of people to xat hin. Tide STOUP beat up PW.3.. / fl iis pushed to the roind and beaten u iTe wa. 1 ter tolten to the llard l Secretary by t he group inôluding the appellant. ,.1ye:Yiall 1ie rnat wd' akeitd the Police where N,3 was issued ritii a PP.3 .totake to hbspial. The PP.3 was filled up by the doctor who exiu 'ed nd tiote . P3. I showed that P 1 1 3 had received a cut wound 11lich rac desperi b oa. 23 dancerou rp. ilso N1 3 had nu1tiple haeriator'. .1 was olo oarircd and'1 thPP.3 shows a big haematoma and other 1 criatoriae on vi1uu3 parts of his iod 'The PP.3 of PJ.2 showed haemaora anul, - the PP.3 of P'I.8 ' showed a out wound irh h describua is d erous herij. It '-als -ored bruise on the l -'fi pW8 testified th ' bi e I an, to.Lcorc! cTip. t naohol to arrest PW.l, 2 cd •3 ic eio lcadn the3th and 6th accused tolpinde. a'e ilod c. : -,-! -L tnes e f threw s tone8 rat hern. pW8 then ec ect to it i • Yr1J3 the ci' eairmnt the ppel7la3t, In his dfeiic the oel1' it j'vc - i ur'swcrn ta en dcnyin any- invOlvement in ti's a- ult. 'C S d ti' t iac no at t.ac cone of omne and that. he wàs sinpJ ifor of. people who had ,heea hicuffdrnthof one mi].jtiàman who had ,'oeen aasault.ed. he the zi took thoiwho - we handcuffed and the mil1t1tLrin U, c1 -eorctar,'s office. The ppeUont called three witnessei, h '-ii I iL .1, obo 1A i Juliec DY.J to sipport his alibi. Mpange said that he '2one. ie 1 f .ot t the handcu'fed people at night. •:,obe sii hct was called b-r the appellant to witn&ss th' fact that a iii iiiar 1 en isa1tod. The 1ernoci tril aistrate fu;d IiCt :'ther.e was eyic1ee :1ô found convictions. He cOiViCtG'1 the aoliait as shown aovo. - In his nsuor'nth:r of appeal the appeilant:aid tht the 1earxéd' trial magistrate convicted the.. a e1ln. witi:iut enou évidonceof partjcipation in the crime he :a7ejected the 'dCfence without. sound reasons, and that the sentenced were ;anifes ; .exccsoive. hr. I aLila3a, Ie.rnd Counsel arue9 ih' L c. ' jj of io 'inçt iant w ne believed the trial L ,stn te should i'e. f" t'i',t ti e 1)P01J n 1 was just watching ......./3 - I cannot, with reopnt, see how such an aruient can helenahic in view of the position o leaderohip he appoJ:Lart hcld. :irely 1t could not be said that the appella.it who was tho viiic:e hairricai woulL. arrive at a scene where people were hem, assauJ.te. and simply watch. We havc two withesse (P.3 and P11 1.8) who said that the aapellant ordored.his villagers to beat the complainants. Mr. Khpinga, learned state Attorney supported the conviction. He argued that as it was daytime there was no dander of mistaken identity. I should even add thdt P' was from the sane village as the appellant. He could not possfl3ly have mistaken the Chairman for soceody olese. On my evaluation of the evidence I find that there was overwhelming evidence to base such convictions. Th appellant was idntifed by the complainants as the person who odered the assaults nhd even participated in assaulting the co::iaioants. Hie statement not on oath together with his defence witne:ssos- evidence does not in my view cast any doubt on the prosecution case. Ic learned trial 1ag±strate found the complainants to be truthful winocsos and I canno; say that he was wrong in doing so. The P.P, 3 for each complainant dloarly show that the comelainants were assaulted. The evidence of P1.4 the 1.7 ard Cecretary clearly says that PW.3 was handcuffed whom ho was Prought to, his office by thQ appellant. When PW.4 quetiond the po lant, the nape Ilant said that p\'1 was handcuffed becse ho had attacçed tiap villa. 1he arpe.lant even gave 11"W.4 a letter elaining that some peo;1e had attacked lids village. This evidence tallies with that given by Ph. about the anpeflani ackinghim Mhy he had come to his village without penniosion. For the above reasons, I find that the -co was enough evidence to warrant the convictions. I dismi o the appeal against conviction. With regard to sentence it cannot he said that the sentences meted out are excessive. .1 dismiss the appeal against sentence as well. - ) At iibeya, BAUhTI, \ 12th October,. 1934 . . JIJTDG:. Judiment delirered in Court. Mr, Teeroba for Ihoaonn - . For Appellant kr, kwakilaso. . •- absent, / BLLiTI, JUiDGd, 1213. 1934