19881221 TZHC Dar es Salaam

rn A'r DAR ES SALA.AN APPELLATE JillISDICTION TIIGH COURT CRilffi~AL APPEli.L MO.,126 OF 1988 (F.l'o1:1 Original Criminal Case No. 147 of i987 of .tho Dist-riot Court ·of Morogoro District at Morogoro) BERN.ARD HGASOMAo O <O o o • • o • • o o O o o O o o I o eo O o o o o o o o o o oo • oAPPELL..:"i.HT O O O ll o (Original Accv.sed) versus TiIE. UNITED REPUBLIC •••••••••••• ~ •• o o o,, • • • • • • • ,, ~ • • • • • • • • 0 RESPOHDENT (Original Prosecutor) JUDGMEHT . EY..cept for the courte~ to the lea.med counsel who appeaxed :for -the appellant$' this appeal did not deserve a full hearing, It was fit :for SUu7filary dimni Rsa1. It is not in dispute that appellant who~ at the naterial time was a superi·bendant of Police holding· a duty post of an Officer Comraamling Dist•...--ict stationed at Kilosa District 1 did receive in writing shs. 78 1 024/50 2-s e.::tllibi t money• Ro received :this 1~oney on 13/7/85 :from one S/St;t Eli.J.G ...who~ at the material tiTI1e 1 ,·ms O:f".ficcr ComD.anding Station at Gairo~ It is also on record that contrriry to the established police· procedure, appella.."1.t; did not enter this money into e:rlrl.bit register. 'l'he allegation against the appellant is that he stole this money. This allego.tion is supported b-'J evidence which pt:ll.'.p.az:-t~ show that 0~1 27 /7 /85 appellant wa~ as:irnd by Am:i.d.u Mbwezeleni who was then the Rc;;ional Crime Officer of Morogoro to prod.uce the money but failed. to do so.,. On the other hand appellant is ai~Glring that ho gave him the said. m±.ib:i·b noney to Aii-u.a:-1.A Mbwe zeleni as requ.c sted, though he did not ask him to sign :for it. Not onlJr the learned trial Rc~clent lTagistrato was Ulumprosscd 1Jy tho appellant 1 s claim, but also tho sar.10 did not raise any roasonablo doubt against tho prosecution case,. With respect,· I totallJr %"Tee with her ♦ As one of the grouncl.s of- appeal, the learned cuunsol f'or -'uhe appellant s.,crong:Iy criticised the· 1oa.rned trial Rosic.ent i>'faeistrato for acting on ·i;b.o evidence of Anti.du I,fuwezelcmi whon he characterised as unreliable witness,. With respect I have found nothing which justifies this attack, It is inconceivable that such a ser..io:r officer lilrn the appellant could, with ~ob0r mind, be prepared to paxt with such substantial amount of money entru.st~d to him in writing in his official capaci -cy 1 w:i. thout roquirin,:'; tho rcceipient to si@'l for it. IIis explanation for this strange conduc-t is -!;hat he could not ask: the witness to sign. for it because he. was hi0 boss .• Q'Lli te surprisingly this hollow explanation was repeated by his counsel ho wr,s his boss,:; I. hopo ap:pollm-t is not tr;f;i.l1.g to tell the cov..!'.t that it is an ac-t o:f indiscipline for a juniq'.i'.' police officer .to c..sk .'.ri.s m1.p0rior. to do soril.othinG in conplianoo ,ti. th tho established proco- cture c.nd. prc;0tic0 of -tho Police Force~ Ls l said~. -c}~ero is no thine; 1x1.rolial:,le with the ovidonoo of L;:1icl..n 1'11:rl·mzolo:'iit I 8w c1mib·i;f'ul if -tho 102,rnod co1.uisol fo:r the appeH2~1·b _ho.cl c,:,.r0f'ull;7 ro2.d the tostinonics of ii.SP l!.nym::iilrn ii\·rc-.kD,bagc ( PW4) 8nc1 I~CP 1 Sinon Pcyo.s Hw~10ni (PW9 )~ I111.osc :wi tnosscs l,.2,vo Dc:.toridly corro"borc:.tccl ·0ho ovicl_oncc o:i:' Nbwoz0loni., J3o'Gh wi tnossos. ·i;os-tiii'icd that they were proscltt when r,,i-)pcllant failed to p:roduoo ·i;ho ::.1onoy and E1d:.:ii".;tod thc1t h0 h2,cl c;iven · it -to his wif'e fo finance tb.oix 1:msiness projoct~ W!1.cn-hc was first 2,clcocl abou-t the scirl noney 9 appoll;:int saicl that i·i; was ,ti.th LSP il.J.-iyoni!.;:o Ewd;:c1bagcc But later· 011. when Ii.SP f,.nyeniko I,h-rclr,.n.ba,eo ,ms callocl. · encl cl0m.od tho,·;; h0 had tho r:1011.oy., appellant cha.1130d his stor<J nncl 2.dni:ttect t11.2,t he roocivod it,. lfoi·Ghor in tl1.o district cOUI'-'G :1O:r in this couxt hc.,s the evidence of those two witnossoG been challenged.. Lot ne end this ·juclgn.ont 1,y rop0nti11.3 wha'G I SDid G.t tho b0gi1111.i110 ,. · It is only out of' oou:rtcey to ·;;ho le&,1.od ooUJ.tsol for tho 2,ppoll2nt tho.t this a.pp02.l was Dillru tted. to hco.r:u.1{;~ Ot~1or1ri.sc it c.losorvec;l_ a ·sw.108,I'jr clisd.ssoJ.. Tho a,ppco.l fails at its ontiro·i;y~ \· j . ;T \ ! '· \· ! \\"'·· 0,U • ,( H,,:.tt11SUMI )' '' JU])GE 21/12/88 For tJ.:o Ropublio_c Sir:1bek2.li e, For tho Ii.ppolla.nti Lipild..,