19840921 TZHC Mbeya2

1T LLT IIIC-il CQT OF TAZMTI4.. i'r ULLLTJ) ,YSDICTION 0 , • J••• \O Jif t ' ORti± Ik CiSE O.H92 cPi ' •1', •\L4SJ .o '- •i %- -, J o i: DiC .- nT -' IaT COUR OF 1J11IJ 1)ITLtC T TFUL'1J - . .. -'1o:re • 4 r 4 j3, ripon, ]sq., Ditrita.sb •! #IC' ( ! -te i.- • PA S. ri FIiu •S8O . Jr •r" ti Obta QC f L i O2 ' 2T the PeS4 dJiCoits iOf) it L 5o JDJ o ho(' z cii ri A £ r n -'zw ..B 1 j ,00t "o I 16 This is n aea1 by 4. A ..? -id )e.d' c ainc - u c!.irM d' 4 o 't.ie ci Coup of at Tu1çu. 'the wai 0ft000t5 of obtnp. mono' Lw fae rotctha' ctr 4b t.Lc )k rtenil 1 Code ej.1d v tas eeioed to two eirs' otch coiñ 1st apUat ws coiwoted of ' hthc c4 s. IOQ of the e al de and s cbd TOl1th e on ?ch count. I c ua 1,o covi coit ai1iuo1-iey" y false reencLs c s,O2 o the ! 3 lC o d+a& ited cea I rionnent, All the ent-s r15i] tc&uQ?'d \e're 8dered to The fact i. h.jS case I ha11 keep li' ctcription r of the. accused s ? he:T .ire drI W- accued Jiçthaec ptoZid All zue rftho' nd asked to e çli i .00cV -toe r 1ikc 'ii tLci as'beig by ti..e PoL anc co- tEdnc4. va1iaIes ioobj. The 2nd. accupcdaabu bian' a.pered wt the co&'ib arE clamc'd tt be t1e P olicq iiweatiAing the oee aeured f1 jfth1t e 5P8 C I .c• .,. . ru.i er; S. r() iE :kti)1 . L . • .......... box would be ie1eed. The alleged Bpwa sa.d to bc st tne 2olice Station, Tukuyu A eed and 34vo Shs.3400/ to 1st accused who rGadily gave j The 2nd aocuted entered. the .Lo1ice Station ut the - .])ox of 1st accused. But the 2nd acotsed n .i. Thcp yhen,,P '.1went4nto the P oO. Station to iliquire about the 2nd aQc21sd.rh9he believeclto be a Police- man, the 1st accused also thppeared. PWQ1 could not see any of the ., aocusod. He then narr*ed his stoi'y to 'the O.C.S. at the Police Sajon but the two oued 'ft hl' rn) went on with investi.. gain o Ehe oa. This t.&dOft. 7/a/8 Oii.on- 20/9, 82 UiQ ttô Me4 M4 tK dhe ' Mul Iibaruku n T.2,,.. Aga the 1st acciiti t'lended to be in di±ficu1tyat lCiwi irio.. Settlement, The 1st dtUq iliaot ii'fliai'uki i.3n askd hira *boit one pe.rson 1y the iThaiie f Daiai1 tO.& 1st accused th&4 63e 1as no person by t1Io tlazae o ad1i18. at kiwua s The 1st acWdal i1rate& his story O± 64 . hio bbk ft.ntdiiiing valuabl had been .jzc& by he Pøtjce and how .h to reIése it if only he paid thwa Thn, 10,000/-, Abdul Iberu1'u, P.2 ot to whe t *CQU.Led waa tal'.th W,3 ii *Jer ha no xncrey, But J?W.2 c14ed to help the cused o4. 1e ou1&in 'tay c ,the • 9).itenen. o h. ideta d t •iç: i a edwcm,war and came' bjwith.2nd ac.cd o tid that1st cused.had am'te1 1'. ' ovd. iOny :OTh ; 4)fl :.sthe3B man. '41 P 1 .4: •tjn tO. hs .2aOOM. ....kf. Ispj:awe :ctce 5 1h U2: 'eoat Jj'o2! butc1ry . vo: thiey to•1s'acct'et. yi not. the 3hs10 9 000. Z giving ioney to ac Then the tw.'accs' went1awaynd :.'t s. o2.-gain until 1 ovober, 1932 when they were arreted by the wothwz: offeee's icharge of the case and pxà red. an .i'Otif 4&4io aacLe .'*the the parade' saythc IJ6 'jflSjdt hav1ithe j.rde . 1eciac: the IO1.Z.; ,ade hd inyqlved the t 'op1.tnants ñ1iy,.'1 ulydentL.fied. 'th:accus iio -then: .L . g 5jS1 •e def once Ist .aecuced ddid.the, h iet P1. 2 or\1z t3.t tie' in 1?65 i ahgaw':..hn iri 931 h: JO P. 2!aa at Kjwja and began doinp, bucinoo with hir. p'J2 inti'oduced him to P1.1 0 . .. 5'- The-i in N2y, 1-982 ljhê udi r ic3 ( ) fl ) •Easfl3s with PW.2 brow:;jt Ijr. 2 goo1' iiq:c B,ppo/ to 1-11, 2 in J Aguit, 1982 o that .2 si' lY chased then away, e tueaccu.jed went awa ep±or oer, 1982 ii J- to h.wira, U.a i not want to se ti: i14 âcedcarn back in .- . , • TI.,'; •.. '... •- Novonber, 1282 to ICiwira and again 2W.2ciid nottartt an cea1inc with thea. Ten on 1 2, fl/2 c two cU 2?Te -td for ol)taining mOflë1)y fa1 pret±ce ±edq woJ2 33 çcued gave was ?:r1tto1 o]a a seet of accusdWáseadi4- c -- secretly until..when the court disãbve,ed that..'ho-had been readinG all that he said ,- pot . . . I . i: • r •' In CiYC.eXamnatjdr 1st acuedpp, tbat1 had s :icc'ce for ii1 so?. " t saiö..aly:.-tha-b ITØ 2-/E8. . The 2d accLZsed said in defencq -_duicj,*l to P.l by helt acced .aav 19a1tL.iwira. •:t (e ].975. He t... - . 1. , .-- f.• f•O); ce to 'iwira witi' lt ccu'3ed 1-n 11r 1981. At Kiwira c 1 i.e were guest s • adi.d ±hoyrtiurg ne i • 1 • In -1982 ?1.I iM'ôoe thi'ii'o t 1,Z O 2/3' 32 the st accu262 ro ht the \ rr ç. S2 , • 1 magerieo' vi_a where t toot I'.l and ods (cnabC c.'°ods) to - P111.2 a the hoie of 1' ;2. r.i : --. . ra 'oo of tno oontrasad goods tce11. a1rle+i1 an on ii/JO/ \1to1ri -w eu to go to P.2. f The- o accueo. fd to 3iiea' iione fi'ori -) .1 and X.2 eoncernj.ng their, contra'oaiö gdM .. Then 1j1 1'oie 1 .'32 they arrQsted by the 261ie -b JIaLnd kur Tha d withobtaining rioney by 1al'o1 pre..c' tfron PW.1 ae ,.2 i1io dntif'Ied th. -i at au • .•, .. -.•. -. . •'- paaae. I - tt - The- tii- al ia p tra v ras coñvincc' c •b.' the tri th of the roseouticin • . ... . . •. .. . ------. :c -- ce 'c1 ht co'victod t5odct1'-ed pocsonz. t,) - I 1-' -c 41Ie' accvsed'€i. ou - 6 jcihdc of appeal. s-hey are the foilown— •t41 )rc!1hat t1ie IL n.'cation arilo I y ho two vie t' - t sI'ould not ?-take-< u. ic& ac it-biu.ze tTç. atc oPii 45fo 1C 15/11/82 w oh the ar de a ,. rj. j. - r. ft' () That c1 r ..titxs (1W_1 2) tic clt& j t4ia?t t11egifor C'y cr on too ty'e 0 va.Iu roeW' ]icnco, hciwj,1ie .' i' io two ferio s accjvic aid o1o1 094\€ CW W1,Q in Dod Ga.- tTore a1rea 'c t.d oe 4 Ia §cpL tc inp]ic ot aquçed r.w aa 1 ' uaI at all o'..uc hç co:riictcd? • -.. •• ........,. ........- .J '•.. ....... L•.'_:j icso• t-4v ?:- •. .. .4. 1 4 .• ..•.-c..,•'i. IMP N (3) That to each person (i.i) and IW.2) we told thau that our box in thich the trophies were hiddeii thrc wa• about Shs.8.O,OQO, then the victims (PW.l and.1,2) di3. not reject our request on the Xeasofl that we could have used. th ount which we-.kepth the ox t reo&ue the trophies andsofor.th. : (L That, the aced 2 Raabu Nbwena did esonate hnelf an irvestigating officer of rolice. Dd he procLuc any identity cd to prove that he a real Police Officer a i 't . is uçd tø .bG.fora).l jestiating Offoers • of Police willie they are on duty. .. .. . 5) thqrç wa no on yJ wieed, that tie when each of the wo yictim gave the said rieoy to accused nurner tiOit is ÔIéáth thai the tthg1 s q.. e.- no up (6) at rf ëôc for hoidin ..tt . .. itin) w.re nbta - accoi hoes 6r acessoriece hr. 1 dunc,uru, learned Otite .ttorne7 who argued in rely to these of ' meal aict that the victr - ' die. not know tha accused by name Ii d so it was ficcesa honduct tha i3entification parp.dLe The B!.l had on aeôused only oil the day he was swindloa, In a' rer to ound duL1uI.j subiittea that the cori lainants were victiri.., ano. th ?y coul ot hev e been con'dcted as cccscores. ith erd roun4 3, chrnj..ru subratea that a ccordinto the exlanatt9n rf te accused the to had to be bailed out of the hands of th.. 2olice ajd )Lforo that the c Cus ad co'ild nou tel a any noney from ita fc regad oui d , 16. aflp.'u ar.ucci that -the second accu ed did not show ar identify e1 for thi wad -io '-ecoscary for one odnL, as a Polico cer, fs foi the 5th gcounc1 r. iduiiuni subrutto ia ti evidence of Ii,5 was thoe to i1o'1 tha 1 t accused was riven h...l,0OO1= by PW.2. M. Jc1uguru suppor±Cd thc conviction. The 'ro.eceb.on 9Lor3 althou L,h quite peculial is no doubt true. From the iiicloiice of all the prosecution witnesses there cannot be any doubt about the truth of the prosecution story. It that the accused have COLIC up with quite a di.ffe:ont stoy sh6winr how they were doing illegal )USlfl with the victims in thin case. 3ut, like the .= District Oou2t I oi1d havc, no troLibic rejecting it as iiiere falsehood, Indee ihc t ry of the accused ersor i jiiepos±croUS . The 1st accused could noi even give his c1 efOe as 3uch instead lie had prepared his defence or q. 1ece of aer which he reac a.ç ccui seoretlj. The Court came - ....•e• /5 ...... . 4* - . -. .y_ • - •1 to discovor that the 1st acojrnd. hd - b.er reading from a piece of paper allAhA he deposed in Courts The riece of paper was duly taken from ca jçm +to accused read cannot be taken to be a statement on oath. The learned trial magiitrate was entitled to place very little reliance on it. The defence of the 2nd accu 6.oue4 the saise pattern as that of the 1st accused. There was nothing in this because after all the 2nd accused had hoard all that giihhel.st accused had been reading. On the other hand, the evidence of !Al is corroborated inrnaterial particulars by the fe-ct that 1e- p6tetES °t 1rrc tbou rh had happened. L'he trial 1'agistrate who believed him and 1 cannot say that c-iog i -idqi... Indeed ;the accused in- their defences admit havir' had dealings with - 1 -and even PW.2 on the dates they are alleged to iavi defrauded the complainants. it -would-have bqe uattc:.' II' the accused had 1 i4ip'tely to have had anythin-rth. do - with 2W. 1 and A 2 48ts for -. the.idence,... p1 P11.2, it is corroboated o - the onestion of money by 20 .4 and 1J.5 PW. 3 corroborates the story of i.2 in. 3or:: r -aterial particulars. Again,I cannot say that the trial ir1agbratc ias wrong in accepting the evidence in repect of what happened. to :W.2. Th accused persons iere apparenti y unable to May their meeting 15,1 and i-'.2 but -ti-icy decided to give, a story 1-1hic1 in my vioi is preosterous. 7h3 fact that 01 and pW,2 way have been helping the accused to bribe the Police in order to achieve something namely a bon with contr.band goods does novitiate the proceedings in the trial Court by ranking their evidence inadmissible. The charge is one of obtaining money by false nretences. Whether the false pretence-s i.e. what the victims wco promised in return for their money was illegal does not change the nature of the offence. It still remains obtaining noney by false pratences. We know now of course and indeed the trial court know that what thu accused pretended was to be done was false, honce false pretence-s. 4e victiuc could not possibly he charged with obtaining money by false pietoncori jointly with the accuoud persons. Nor could the victi:mc be charged with personating a public, officer jointly with the accusud - - Per the reasons I have given above I find this appeal to be without merit and I disciss it accordingly. Th e sentences of 2 years imprisonment I- . . . . . .1'0 - - -?r't '..V- - --