19921216 TZHC Dodoma

.AP:?:GLLL\.~ ·J'Jl1.ISJJICTION. (Dodoma Registry) ., I ORIGI:'.'.JAL CRIViI11:.AL CAS~ NO., 18 OF 1991 OF THE DISTRICT COTJ,:;.T 0::::1 M:ANYO:i.U DISTRICT AT MANYONI BZF'OR:S E,.F. } uS.SI f Es.q 7 o; :DISTRICT 1''iAGISTRATE SI'hVIN DAVID •. • e o • • • • • ~ APPELLA:NT versus THE REFG7LIC • o O 0 • • RESPONDENT . ' JU:OGJVIENT MWALUSANYA;' J !..::.. I The a_ipellant Stevin S/O David was charged and convicted of robbery with vi0lence c/ss 285 and 286 of the Penal Code Cap. 16 by the Manyoni District Court. He was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment · ·· l 1 2 strokes of corporal punishment,, He is now appealing against conviction and sentenceo It wa.s common ground at the trial that on the night of-21/1/1991 the complainant Sylyester s/o i'f"JSogoti (PWn 1) was attacked by robbers in his house and was assaulted with pangas. The robbers made away with cash shso· 32s000/= and a number of itemso An alarm was raised but when people arrived the robbers had gone~ The complainant did not identify. any of the robbers~ On the next day the see,rch party consisting of the complai~t PW.1 ~ a villager Yir • .Sospeter s/, Asafiri (P·l.2) 9 and the Chairman of . . Sungusungu M.r.· Iddy s/o Ally (PW,,3) began to trace the foot prints of the robbers that led away from the cc-mplainant's house.-' -·ie,;,,-.,,_,. UI I. •1• 91111----------S' ■111-~•·1"1••"!;,.,-i)'!II. ~ ■-P"'PQ1191'"--•-•- 2 l. with Luckly the• trail of foot prints wa$ also g~~cedjjieces of groundnuts and parts of a sewinG mac~ine. The trail ended in the shamba of one Ytr. Mwaluko s/e Mpan'ji (DWa3),. who is tl1e employer of the .appellant. In the shamba there was ap;:,eila;Tt a.nd his colleague lazaro s/o I"'Jazengo cultivating 9 but }'Then t:1.ey saw tl1e search party from afar they ran away leaving behind their:ooes and:shoes; They took t:1ose things to their employer DW.3 9 who was iristrncted to bring the appellant and his colleague the ne_xt day at the C. C.,Hn · Office a Indeed t~e _appellant and his colleague were sent before the Ward SecretaryJactan s/o Mswela (Pw.4) the next day by IY..'.3. It is said when interro3ated the a~'.'pel.lant co?fessed to have had committed the offence in a company of two·other culprits. It is said the appellant revealed that t:1ey ha,d .shared the loot ,.and ·was . prepared to 60 to sh'.)w where he ~1..:1;:!,, hidden hiE: par~ of the loot. · He took them to his sh,::i,mba · but failed to s~1ow where he had hidden the loot. But in no time he took them to a place near the shamba of.IlW.j a-nd' a ba·g containing two shirts was revealed by the appella_n\•:,. The complainant identified the bag• and the two shi:i..·ts as his stolen property. That led to the charging of. appellant and ~1is colleaguea. The appellant denied at the trial that he had committed the alleged offence. He denied to have volunteered to show the stolen property. He said th.at the bag and two shirts were discovered in the -bu.sJ:t by the search party and not because he had_shown thenm. Like the trial court I am of the considered,view that the ca.se wdS proved beyond any reasonable doubt against the appellant. There are three pieces of evidence incriminating the a:9pellant. First the trail of the foot prints led to the direction of the appellant and his colleague. Secondly the appellant and his colleague ran away when they saw the search party. ::l1J.1irdly tbe confession of the appellant led to the discovery of the bag and two shirts beloniing to the complainant. '11he appellant's contention that he nad not revealed the bag containing two shirts was rir,htly rejected by the trial court, for how ' could the search party have discovered the same? In my view the appellant .,,ras rightly convicted 0 o- e it e o ('! o o /3 As regards sen+.ence tho State Attorney Y1r. Kifun.da argued that the same was illegal as thi,3 v2,s not 1~:i;:,_"Jed ro1Jbery 1 but robbery by the use of pangas which does not qualify to be a.rmed robbery;. That is in accordance with Act Noo 10/19890 I agree with the learned State Attorney that 'armed robbery' sh'.Juld be interpreted to mean robbery by.using a gun or ~omething of a similar nature. As in here only pangas were used then it was not armed robbery. 'The sentence has to be reduced to 15 years imprisonment. In the event t:.1e_ appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appealagainst sentence ii:i allowed, I quash the sentence of 30 years . - - imprisonment and 1;lUbstitute thereof a sentence of 15 years imprisonment plus 12 strokes of corporal-punishlnGn-c, Order accordingly. \ (JcLo ;-LJALUSAi:HA) JUDGE --- 1 e/12/1992 Courtg - Judgment delivered in chambers at Dodoma in the parties,,