19880530 TZHC Mbeya6

MCI • , -w IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OP ThNZANIA --S.----- T I•'B.L S.(Mg '_A. 0jaSiGA,J.A.. And OMI ulJJ,AO) II"flNAL APPEIiL NO. 113 OF 17 ANDERSON MANDJiLE. 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 .OiPiJIJANf VLRSUS THE REPTJBLIc.... 00000000 ..R.:;T'NDENT (Appeal from the cnvictiori of the High Cout of Tanzania at Irina-) .(r4teng., j.) dated the 23rd day of March, 1987 in .2iminaJ 94 of 1984 Jt)mMENT OF THE COERP ONI4R' J.A.: The appellant was charged with and convicted of murder contrary io section 196 of the Penal Code. PW.l Tiilurnumb e d/o Semlyuka the wife of the desed stated that on the material day (i.e. 9/12/83) in the evening before sunset as she was partaking of ugali with her husband the deceased, the appellant appeared armed with a wobden stick and without knocking at the door forced himself insid their house and Imocked her on the head, rendering her uncouscious0 The followg day she heard that her husband had been killed and she tol6 people who had gathered to visit her that the appellant was the, person who attacked her and her husband. She also told the Police on the same day the 10/12/83.. She further said that she did not see any other person with the appellant. P.w.2 Stulida d/o Lwiva the daughter of P.W.1 and the deceased / stated that on the same evening she was in the kitchen on the other side of their house when one Ibrahim Mandelo their neighbour and the brother of the appellant appeared at the kitchen door arid ordered her and her friend to lie down. She refused to lie down and soon she heard a hitting sound 'where her parents were. She ran there- and saw TOtZqUT G OWt PE&I Tteo U8 OLl, ol I9UTItI1 TJJWtcI C Ut p3 9US pue ono -cosuoo gem •ps'eaop sql jo at p9rntrç VM . a jeqn 9JflJ39J J9tflO 3UIOS pOpp tMI , nq'EP'"J 9,pasea oap JO s aaquiqui Aq pjçuap tzsq ;ou G.t33oL9q4 9qq. jo loej 3ql uT urtq ptothInG a q PUG ula e le et o. J3MtW Ut tWtL tfl.tF 9UO p OqM pUOr W.ejox qdaof 'cx $uçM 'L( p3T.[3 urddV. s4T pUeq st jo 9T41. JO PTMOUI ~Ue pauop aT4e S -C leql DU T q; swee aq. plue 7 * M O CI cp JEjUTmQTTOJ 9ql D ul e O D OTTOd Nl U-DtlM UEA I1J OtIM sqpuq 3qq. £j.u&pT q0U pflO3 qs qt pieaq aq UtF Aqu Gem H I snoLo s moun -ojTm SjP 9R Q9 Q 9PIPUB pBap £petc pop aql puno; pue uTaele ue A4acqq r3e 'noq9u It( 'p3EDp T4 JO £t1Ot aqj O UId 9 4 a U9M 9H ic-EsnoTAa.xcI e4cep oi. p9tp peq OLIM ajp eq jo qep sql iuTu.XtoLLt euloq eTtJ gem 91q PT es OT, 831M Sul PUG urçq upoee pue p3B9O9 30 ',~snoq sqj le iiupq pup uawslejs u.to4s R-Cti UT 4U eT -C addV puflozre ou Eet 914 'U1aq +Ou s'c nq 3cIod 9 4tOC 'odn9 awoc .etn uo ICILII pe tq.rnj i7/Cj 0 p.oap pcq zraqotq rç o Auedmoa e uT ean ot/'t ettadde pio puc a jTt.% s1p9seaop aqj Sq plol g empu e/t/oi. UO 9U.I0 JO auoQ L4 p9.t9tA UUItC jj~ jt j sal 0'4. pallev.OU qjao sacpaulM OM • 9t q pp pet .uetidde j uqj eqatiij Inecl, •w q 3pB9 - tx4 9til ptw euer q0oefpuettJ JcN .t9q PTOq S Iq 9 "4UP! 3 U •9T41 JO Qpr gmev gql Uo .nff otIod s ust ttn rn peee 2trTaq . Jo .xej .oj oeqe qqq. Jo .uapç at auoicue -- ou prp sq az p.-uipe uewS a a Li ti uazd 9t pe oi.it nrq Tiol •.ou pp epqq ' pcle 'O pl a cl 'tzBw peep fl, ptn0s PUB zvqqaletil 0l q.UM a auctj fly ç'/cI ITtOqt1 )U PU8 u1jeje UB qqs IRjqq T4 , G'E Lj 0. )00; O0. p.ZBJJ uiTqqI U&t ee ,w- VgnC tr - 2TLr 43, 1' • — •— •. • - *t :, / —3- / - jaw? asonofAlly consdezed the evidence on both sides. Of the V1€ t ±...the p3 sbo sd .six people upect-s mould not have done so if P,W3 and p44 2 had itit-eIr jdentifiô the ApN1 1lavAw and his er Thrhim. One of the $uspeot. PAS4JHAL CHUNGWA 1?elflaifled in oustody %1it eppellant ti.1l 2Q387 more than 4 yers 1 He was charged with the appellant for this same cffae of .tEder o+i 2/1O/84 arid a olZ,wss entered egaint him on 9.387, f lk of any edee. to connect him uith tba irder, Lo 01d haue flath this man to the police if P 0 W,1 and P.W.2 claimed to be the only eye witnesses and yet they did not name him6 It only two persona are seen at the $oen€ of crime end named wiy ine.st .six m=e peo.pe and keep one of them in custody fot over faum years before discharging him without triai In this regard we are unable in the light of evidenoe to say that appellant was seen attaeking the decesed. We believe the police were hn a fishing expedition of tlieir own unassisted by P.\/.1 and P.W.2 who claimed to be the eye witnees The statement of Stulid.a to the police does not impress us as the truth or that it was made on the day it was signed, It seems that it was all an afterthought and part of a buildine: programme of this rickety case. We hold that the prosecution evidence doG-s not sustain the •onviction for murder. We accordingly allow the appeal, quash the conviction for murder and set the appellant free u.nl be is otherwieg lawfully held 4 a • aaaa /4 ft -4 DATED at IIBEYA this 30th dcy of May , 1988. T1'[T' TT U0 i1 !1fl.Li1'2fl JUSTICE OF APPEAL R. H. KISiNGA JUSTIcE OF APPEAL A . M. A. ONAR JUSTICE OF APPEAL. I certify that this is a true copy of the oritha1. (J, H. i'JSOFFE) SENIOR ])EFJTY RE:3TLL: