19850329 TZHC Tanga

pp"p IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZDIA - ; - ATTANGA AppELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO, 2 OF 1980 (original Criminal Case No. 52 of 1979 of the) (District Court of Handeni. District at Handeni) BEFORE: M.H. Bakari, Esq, D/Magistrate ANDREA ISSA... .............. .APPELLANT Versus THE REPJBLIC S .O. ............RESPONDENT CHARGE: Cattle theft c/s 268 and 265 of tie Penal Code Cap, 16 Vol. 1 of the laws. J U D G E M E N T 4 - Sisya 3: The only evidence implicating the appellant with the offence charged is what his co..accused at the-trial s Daudi Selemani, who a incidentally, was acquitted himself, isaidto have stated about him, namely that it was the appellant Who brought the stolen animal and sold it to him t i.e. Daudilemani, This was stated by the complainant in his evidence who then went on to say that thereafter the said Daudi Selemani readily gave him another COW and cash Shs, 100/= in the place of the stolen animal which had by then admittedly already been slaughtered by him, i.e. Daudi. In Court, at the trial,Daudi Selemani denied this According to him the refund which he made to the complainant was forced 1pon him by members of the village council. He conceded that he bought coW from the appellant and another person who p.ppeared as th-ird aocus4 f at the trial but he was also subsequently acquitted, He,owever, added that the skin of the said animal was the one which was exhibited in the case The complainant failed to identify the said 6km which .../2 ,- ' / -3- In Para I of the a:oellants additionaL r ':ono Cf appeal the appellant allege. that there are material differences in the contents of the two copies of jiidgemerit bcth of which have been filed in this appeal and th3y are in the court record. 1 have gone through both copies as wel] as the oriir copy which is in the record of proceedings of the trial court. I hasten to say that there are no differences at all. In fot the two copies filed by the appellant are manifestly carbon copies f the origiral typed copy. No wonder the appellant hImself did not advance eve.i a single iifference in the said Copies. His allegation is thus baselso. Jl in all, the conviction is sound in law and it is hereby upheld. - s regards sentence there is nothing that can be done to reduce it because the term of im:'isonment Vhich was awarded is the minimum under the law - tl-n offence f theft by public servant being scheduled under the Minimum Sentences Act, 1972. In the final result this appal fails and it is hereby dismissed. H.E'hii, JUDGE Delivered in open court at T&nga in the presence of Mr. kkaxo, 3tate örney, and the appellant this 29th March, 1985- Y~ ts~~ H..D, - I - JUDGE I