said salum vs the republic 1994 tzhc 411 12 october 1994

IN rr'IIB) HJCKJ 0 W A ® ©;.* AT. appellate jt j r is d ic t io it (EC) CRIUIAAL A'PPEAL 110, 8 OF 1 9 9 4 ORICtIUAL G R IiT lA L CASE -TO. 1 OP 1 9 9 4 OP THE DISTRICT COURT OP SLI17-UTC& DISTRICT at SAID SALUH ..................................... . ....................................... APPELLANT (O r ig in a l A ccu s e d ) VERSUS TITE REP'JILIC ............... ........................................................... RESPONDENT (O r ig in a l P r o s e c u to r ) J U D G 1 Char g e : Robbery .with v i o l e n c e c / s 235 and 206 o f the Penal Code Cap. 16. KATITI, J, Shinyanga D i s t r i c t Court, b e f o r e which, SAID s / o SALUM, and SAIDI s / o RASHIDI, as f i r s t and second accused p e r s o n s ' r e s p e c t i v e l y were f a c i n g the charge o f robber,/ with v i o l e n c e c / s 205 and 286 o f the Penal Code Cap. 16, convicted the:; as charged, sentenced each o f them to f i f t e e n ^ears imprisonment, under the Minimum sentences act 1972 os amended by act ITo. 10 /1909. Hot/ever aggrie ved, was S'.IDI SALTJM, the f i r s t accused herein t o be c a l l e d tho a p p e l la n t , who engagod a Shinyanga based advocate Mr* Mahuma, to p rosecu te h is appeal* In h is armoury o f complaints were - 1 - that tho evidence by PW1 and PW2, v/as so weak, that i t c o u l d not susta in c o n v i c t i o n , ~2r that the t r i a l Magistrate m i s d ir e c te d h i m s e l f , in h o ld i n g that Shs. 10,000/= belonged to the complainant, without evidence in that d i r e c t i o n , - 3 - t h a t . the appellant wa3 not p r o p e r ly i d e n t i f i e d by the complainant - PW1, - 4 - that the t r i a l M agis trate errered in law, in basing the c o n v i c t i o n o f the appella nt on the evidence o f one witness alone - (PW1), - 5 - that the evidence by P.J1 and P-/2, was so fundamentally c o n t r a d i c t o r y , that i t could not found the c o n v i c t i o n , and -6~ that the t r i a l Magistrate erred i n or der in g the d is p o s a l o f noney. e x h i b i t PI 3hs. 10 ,000/= in. favour o f PUl. Mr „ r, ahuma sought, the t the appeal be allowed, and l i b e r t y o f freedom be r e s t o r e d , unto the a p p e l la n t . On the o t h e r , hand, the Senior State Attorney Mr. Kaduri submitted that the evidence was t e n a c i o u s l y , ti^ h t against the ^p^ellant.. end that the c o n v i c t i o n was unshokcable , -lie r e s i s t e d the appeal, and urged t h a t , tae sano oe dis m is sed, :!h i s c o o e , i t seems covers a narrow compass, with, a t e r r a i n th a t i s hardly s l i p p e r l y * I t i s confounding c h a ll e n g e , that at about V:]id~ni1_.ht - on the 30/12/1991:, between Bui:one and.IIaline llail::a„ Stations, h.o a p p e l la n t , and the second accused, were t r a v e l l i n g in the h a i l t r a i n heeding torwards Is aka • Equally t r a v e l l i n g in the sane t r a i n , :<ns. tho complainant PIJl C, 0815 CPL« JCTT:, P',J2 D. 3474 PO, AVICL:.Its and Ph3 C- 13335 OPL. a'JD. As the s a id t r a i n reached IgtlC. riailw-:1^ S t a t i o n , and as the complainant p'.Jl was d ie c n b o r k in o ,. ho was u nsu sp ect in gly sandttfitch by p e o p le h i s tr o u s er pock et torn* and Shs, 10,000/= s t o l e n , and hence h i s r e p o r t t o VvlZ. I' ^midiately, PVJ2 arrested the. youths, t h e r e a t , searched then, and from, the o p p c l l o n t She. 1 5 ,1 5 3 /5 0 , that inclu ded seven notes in Shs, 1 ,0C0/= denomination, and 3hs« 3 , 0 0 0 / = in ffos» 200/= denonir.otion, and Lienee the charg e. The ap p ella n t while conceding, that he was t r a v e l l i n g in. the sa id t r a i n , and f u r t h e r admitting.he ho<2 8b s « 1 5 ,30 0/= on him, he i n s i s t e d i t was h i s p r o p e r t y , he denied s t e e l i n g the same from P h i, nor from anybody at a l l . The t r i a l I-Iagistrate, r e l i g i o u s l y b e l i e v i n g P/71.., and that Shs• 1 0 , 0 0 0 / = found upon the appellant by PTJ2, in deonominations mentioned by PIJl, a c t u a l l y bebpged t o Phi concluded t h e r e f o r e , that the said money and amount, must have been s t o l e n from the . complainant, by the th i e f .w h o was no o th e r , then, the a p p e l l a n t , and hence, the c o n v i c t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e t h i s appeal* Having exposed the evid en ce, to aerutinous and p u r p o se fu l j u d i c i a l a t t e n t i o n , I an minded to think, that the c a s e , i s not as simple as i t i s made to appeal’ * Conceding as we a l l do, that th e c r u c i a l witnesses in t h i s case, are PIJl and Ph2, and i f we are t o , c o n c e d e , that PWl's Shs. 10,000/= were s t o l e n f r o m ,h i s p o c k e t , which was cut to f a c i l i t a t e such t h i e v i s h removal, the q u e s t i o n f o l l o w i n g - c n h e e l s must be, - who 3toJLeand, how was he know11 ? The complainant Pl/1 t o l d the Court th at, the money was s t o l e as he was g e t t i n g out o f tae t r a i n , and as he was Sandwitched by the a p p e l l a n t , and the second ac cused , Th is, i t seems t o me, p re su p p oses, that toe said co nploin ant sow, a n d . i d e n t i i i c d the one who cut h i s p o c k e t ,. ond removed h i s Shs. 10 ,000/=* But on r e f l e c t i o n t h i s appears, to have been not the c a s e , f o r the very complainant upon d is c o v e ry o f t h e f t , ho r e ported such t h e f t t o PW2, I f the sa id complainant PW1, had any one, or the appella nt i n nine!, he would have, e i t h e r p e r s o n a l l y apprehended the t h i e f , as s u c h . t h i e f cut the p o ck e t, and rcnovod Shs. 1 0 ,0 0 0 /= , or p o in te d hir.) o u t » hut as i t . seo&o, he did n e it h e r o f th e s e . This i s v i n d i c a t e d by P'.J2 ' c , conduct upon r e c e i p t o f such t h e f t r e p o r t o f , “ p;.?buching the r r c o , 3~cl a r r e s t i n g a l l the souths*;, and t h a t , hence, the complainant ido::ti IV .l.r.:g the see or: d accused, who showed them the a p p e l l a n t , who was searched and hence, the re co v e ry o f Shs. 1 5 , 6 6 3 / 5 0 , On f u r th e r s e r io u s r e f l e c t i o n , s i n c e the complainant, as I have above argued, had net i d e n t i f i e d the t h i e f , and hence the a r r e s t o f t h e . „ ou th s, i d e n t i f y i n g 'uhe second accused to p o in t out the a p p e l l a n t , dees not e a s i l y , l o g i c a l l y , and r a t i o n a l l y f e l l o w . . I t would t h e r e f o r e seen t o ^e, t h r t , the evidence by PWl. and PIJ2, does not e a s i l y render i t s e l f , to i n p e c c a b l e c r e d i b i l i t y , I as did argue, the appellant in h i s f i i s t ground o f com p la in t. As argued by h r . llahuma, the advocate f o r the a p p e l la n t , i t would seem, t h a t , t h e . l i n k between the crime c h a r g e d , and the a p p e l l a n t was Shs, 10,000/= whose denomination Pl/1, i n s i s t s he had e a r l i e r t o l d PT72 about. :7ith r e s p e c t , bank notes s e r i a l numbers, o f a p a r t i c u l a r amount, are o f f i c i a l impeccable d i s t i n g u i s h i n g marks o f bank n o t e s , o f a p a r t i c u l a r amount., and, I would s e r i o u s l y shudder tn think, that denominational amounts, or d i f f e r e n c e s t h e r e o f , which anybody could, carry with him carry c ar r y l i t t l e i f any e v i d e n t i a l w e i g h t , In the li.dat o f such argueraent, I hope, the complainant, and I hope th e .R e p u b lic to o would not s e r i o u s l y argue, that in t h a t .Hail T r a i n , , anybody with bank n o te s o f Shs, 1 0 0 0 /s each, and.Shs, ZOO/- each, and whose t o t a l amount in h i s , her p o s s e s s i o n , exceeding 3l» b m1cUPs° 0 / =' t h i s l a t t e r amount would n e c e s s a r i l y h.five £frdfl.on complainant, Further i t i s in recor d ed e v id e n ce , that the appella nt was in p o s s e s s i o n o f Shs. 1 5 ,1 6 5 / 5 0 , though the ap p ella nt t o l d the c o u r t sworn, t h a t , he had Shs, 1 5 ,3 0 0 /= on h is p erso n , h i s personal p r o p e r t y . But we have not been t o l d , as to what denominations e i t h e r in 3ns, 1000/=, or in sh s, 300/=, the ap p ella nt had, to e x clu d e the p o s s i b i l i t y o f the c o n v i c t i o n prone p ro s e c u t i o n ( a l l p r o s e c u t i o n w itnesses are P®l;.ce O f f i c e r s ) from oickinn; the 4 amount, that s u i t e d i t s c a s e .m o s t . Cnee again, I am in agreement with the a p p e l la n t , th at, there was no r e l i a b l e . e v id e n ce t o show, that the money taken, from the a p p e l l a n t , was the very money s t o l e n , from the complainant. That .the complainant, had not i d e n t i f i e d the one who s t o l e h i s money, has by necessa ry i m p l i c a t i o n , been d e l t with in ground o f complainant ho. ( 1) , above. -“Vut to demonstrate i t , f u r t h e r w it hout p r e j u d i c e , I have to e o i n t out the f o l l o w i n g , - 1 - that enmasso i t became necessa ry f o r Plj2 to a r r e s t , ^ - 2 - that he only r e p o r t e d the t h e f t t o ?J2, shows he did not know the t h i e f , and t h e f t was committed when lie was unaware, -3~ the c o n t r a d i c t i o n in the ev idenoe by PI/1, that the appella nt threatened t o sta b.him , and y e t c o u l d . n o t p o i n t him out ~ a l l e i t h e r cun m u la ti vely , or s e v e r a l l y v i n d i c a t e , .the ap p ella nt that the complainants t h e i f , was not iden tified . li’rom t. e a f o r e g o i n g , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to say, by any s t r e t c h o f l e g a l th in k in g , th at, t h e f t by the appal"ant had been e s t a b l i s h e d And i t i s even worse, when the eviden ce i s c o nsid ered in r e l a t i o n t o the o f f e n c e char :ed~Robbery with v i o l e n c e c / s 235 and 286 o f the Penal Code Gap. 16. I f S ec tio n 205 o f the Penal C o d e ,is read j u d i c i o u s l y and d u t i f u l l y , . the w i l l r e a d i l y r e a l i s e , that t o c o n s t i t u t e the crir.se o f r o b b e r y , the f o r c e used, must be, at or . immediately a f t e r the t i n e o f s t e a l i n g to any person or p r o p e r t y , and such f o r c e must be o f such a n r t u r c as t o sbow, that i t was_ . in tended t o o b t a i n , or r e t a i n the property s t o l e n , or to p re v e n t , or over come r e s i s t a n c e to i t s being s t o l e n , or retained^. And the ty pe o f v i o l e n c e , f o r purposes o f r o b b e r ; , i s ably demonstrated, as n e a r in g that demonstrated in S e c tio n 236 o f the Penal Code Cap. 15 f o r aggravated ro bbery , and Se ctio n 237 Cop. 15 - attempted r o b b e r y •. So that I f a i l to surmise and even c o n c e p t u a l i s e , how a p e rs on , can have the o f f e n c e o f robbery with v i o l e n c e c / s 286 o f the Penal Code committed upon him, i l e lie i s unaware o f i t . S u re ly i t i s i m p o s s i b l e . I'Tom the above, i t i s c l e a r , that the uepublic did not prove the charge beyond reaso nable doubt, and the appeal -i s hereby a llo w e d , c o n v i c t i o n quashed and sentence set a s i d e . ; 'ouovcr and l a s t l y , the ap p ella nt contends t h a t , the t r i a l M3gistrate*3PQ33l$" erred in orderin g Shs» 10,000/= t o be. -returned t o the coraplninapta This would be a l i g i m a t e com plaint, i f the . t r i a l l i a g i s t r a t e , had acted on the wrong s i d e o f the le w . It i s , I th ink f a m i l i a r law, th a t , whore an„thing has been tendered, or put in e v id e n c e , in any c r im in a l proceedings as E x h i b i t , and i t s ownership i s c o n t e n t i o u s , and i t i s not s u b j e c t to speedy and n a t u r a l decay, the Court r:r>j make an order in favour o f any person who appear a to be entitled; fr-eroSo, provided such order s h a l l n o t , be c a r r i e d c u m u n t i l the p e riod f o r l o d g i n g an appeal has ela p s ed , and i f an appeal has been l o d g e d , u n t i l such appeal has been f i n a l l y d e cid e d , and disposed o f - coe j3ectJLon 353 (5) o f the Oriminal Procedure Act 1935><, In t h i s case the t r i a l M a g is tr a te , d id heed such p r o v i s i o n s to .the l e t t e r , and that the a p p e l la n t s appeal has been allowed, he s h a l l be e n t i t l e d to h is money. The appeal i s a llo w ed . D eliv ered t h i s 12th day o f October, 1994. JUDGE