19860724 TZHC Mtwara

i,H i:::LL1,'I'i:, JUkI.SDICTION ;CS'.'. CuU.!'l' U(i..i-111'-.l\L Ai. r L-1.L NO. 2 2 OF 1985 Originc:11 Crini.n,::il Case No.219 of 1983 of the Jistrict Court of Song~J District at Songea J~forc PoA ■ Rugazia, isq, Resident Magistrate ALLY Sj,IDl O COO O O O O O O O O O O O O O o.o O O O ~ APPi:;LLANT versus THS R~PUBLlCooooooooooooooooooo X~SPONDENT J lJ D G M E I~ T RUBAMA, J. Ally Saidi W,;.s chcrg,;:d with and convicted of burgJur.y c/s 294(1) of the Pcn~l Co~e and ste2l~ng c/s 265 of thu Penal Code. He was sentenced to six ye~rs imprison~ent on the first count and twelve months imprisonment on the sec:ond count; the sentences to run concurrently. He h,:s appeal.< against the convictions and sentences., The evidence against the app~llant is overwhelming. He had been caught in possessiGn of recently stolen goods. The stolen goods w~~re )artly in his house and partly at the bush. ehat / It was when he wc.s in th1.:: process of hiding 'thatLwds later retried from th2 bush that th2 appellant had been spotted. When appro::ched o.t his house, the. appellant ran away only to b~ eau~ht aft~r some chase. He then confessed to having burgled th8 hous2 of th~ com~lainant and having stolen items found in his posss;;ssiono The recovered goods were properly identifiedo Th~ ~ppc2l against conviction is dismissed. In fact the; ,::ippc~l. was admitted to c~msider the sentence. My brother judg2, \·1:·,2n cdmi tting. the appeal to hearing had indicated that th~ sent2nce appeared severe in view of ~he faet that the a~pellant was a first offender. I am of , different view. Granted ~:at t~~ appellant was a first offender ooo/2 7 2 and all the stol2n items h□d b~en r0cover0d, the trial magistrate had prc._.~__.rly c:1ddress2d him::elf en the issue of sentence. H~ cx2rcis~d hj~ mind judiciously und I see he woulc..i a:Et2r all whether h.:.: lik.,:.:d it er not have iiad to imµcse i•j_ve years sentence as the value of th~ stolen goods w0s above sns~S,OOO/=• We are th~r~for~, ·c.c1lkin9 of ~ year c.dditiono I see no reason for chnnging the sentence. The appedl against concurrent sent~nccs is dismissed. In totality thcrcf·.:.>re;;, tht, aµpeal is dismissed in 5.. ts ,. entirety. Yahy a Rub am~ Judge 24.7.86 Coram: RU 3,.-.JiA, Jo Parties absent Judgment delivcrcdo ~,'\- . .;.~.•--,__ ,----:\-. Yahya Rubarna 'Judge 24.7.86