19940204 TZHC Dar es Salaam

; .... r, - ·•.,- • ~-'I:·-;: r· :1 ',"T'. G..,Tt.;T1T J..l. .....L'. v jyJ..i..J.. hT 1 A·o~1-: /,T 1'TO .U..U.'J...LJ..l.3,1..1 ~ .r ~J:l,J..J • • 44 r'lu"l \.l[' 1903 7. O.P..IjJ.liiAI, CB.:UU.i:,•/.I, Cii.-'J 1'i'Oo 1C68 OJ' 1990 uJ' rr::.r... m:./rrtIGT O0u.ciir• JJ1 ILAL.11 DI3T~ucT , AT· -1cr."JK0lU ~ APPDLL.Alfr TEE fGPUDLIC o,e O O .t O O O O O O O O O e O • EJSPOOEJlJ.T ., Tb.a .aJ.)palle,nt 3b.abai1i Ramadhani waS found guilty of l'Qbbery with violence c/s 285 t:.. 286 01' t::ie· Penal Coc1e a,t the Kivutcppi ru,l'e- ·court and was sentenced to 15 ye_a,1:s imprisonment and 12 stl'okas- of the .. cane .. rre is appealing a.;:.dmt both tµe conviction and sente~- i Accordir1G· to the 0omrlla.1.natit iriaa Kessy (Pfi) on the 3/9/69 at a,bout 11 o15 porn., the door ~o her ~~use Wefil broken open bf-~ \i;.lo used a heavy stoneo Ab~t 3 or 4 thugs:· entered the ro~ a)le ,ma sleeping in _and starteii qttacl.d~, her w:i.tJ;t a pa.!l(.$ao ~ ~- · -.,;, we:ro described al? having beep armed \Tith kl-iives~ axes and p~~" . .i Tb.augh she had hidden behind 'Ghe door ·to her ro0i~1 s~1e 1..-:...S pul~~d out am . { I . . slashed on the left and ri~~ shoulders ~o. :Z·orced to pa.r-t wi~ a wallet. containing 27,&JC Shs 1 gold~n ornaments an" 2 wc1tches. '.!:he~ ,; . some of whom remain.ad in ~e Bi tti.11g room 4110. others were out~tde the house 9 demana.e d for tlte swi tcl1 of mot~r veh:ole of the c~p.l~inant o 'Toou@l they were· gi--;en th~ Gwiich _th~ fa,tl.ed to drive the ~hiote away6 . The C<Xn].)lain,1nt ille.tl6GBc3: to CSc.a,pb ~d re::iorted to the 1ouoe Station i3ugurunio On the 8/ 10/89 the com;,lainant found the ~tfutlnq · acou.'lfld weari~ a -watcb. · she i.dentif ied as ii:avinc be en one of thdl~ stolen f-rozn }le.r h..ouse o Sb,e ;reported to the Police who~ on ~terr.og,~tin:g 2 ... ~Le second accused 9 ho told t 1:.sm t:.1at I;i.e La0. hou._:~t it :from the appella..l'lt. The Police 'looked_ fJr t:.'!.e a,ppella.11t cJJ.1d. arrested :'.~.im. At the trial the suco:1.c"t J.CcUBed called tuo witnesses to support his allegation that tl:.e --~-P!'ellc•,i-:t ~:ad sold -t'.·o m-1.,tcl~ to him. D:f4 Rai11aclliani Mtoro stated t:.,.at ::onutime in ::ie1,tod,(-_):c he had 0 onG to the ;.1ouse· of the se'cm1cl· ;"),CQtt:.cc'. -s,,.""ld i/1ete :fonlcJ. t'.:.e appellant with a golden watch wb.ich ·he 80lcl. foJ: 3000 .3hs. :70 maiD.tained t~1at t~:::.ey were only t~tXee pe_roons present" '11'.o.is mw j_n cont::c~t to t]:::.e ev:i,.dence of the cecond wi tneas · )la-0·id Dbrani (m,;3) o Ac::;o:,?dilv~ to that wi t11ess the appellant was id th c1 ]_)s1·s on called Ra.roadhani A,_:as: •.:>to .. · :re ala o menti9ned another person caJ.1'.-,d Abuu W:10 :'.c.'-d 11ow~J,.t t~,.e watoh e.arlier on but w-a::i returnin6 it on cliscoverinJ ttat it ·v;8JJ not ¥olden. P~adt,.a.'11.i ijashoto is then reported to Lc;;ve instructed t:~e 2nd accused to give A.bu.u. 3000 Shs. and that concluded the sale., T.c.a,t means t]:en t~:at those present at t~ e sale 1101~0. -t~e a:ppella;1t, tLo 2nd accused, Abuu and Rarnadhani Mashoto. There is no rnent"~on of Rai11ad•:,ani Mtoro (DH4) who nould have constituted t):.c fift;:1 :person. T.'.:..ere is therefore a . major contradiction between tzi.e evidence o:-..· ·118;:;,.:,id Diwani and tltat of Iiamadhani Mtoroo The complainant Gtat0d tt-.at sb.e identi:t'iod tlle appellant beoroise thel'e was mmon light. S!10 ?1owever did nbt elaborate how the moon lig..'lt ansiated her to see t:::.e appellant in tl:e !).O'._<f;e u.nd 11'..J.en the thugs w110 1-rere many nent outside t!10 Louse fJlle could not explain wl:at role t}.;.e appellant played. Since s'·~e admitted not ]·.2,VinJ aeon the ap}.Jellant before the d~ in question an :i.dentificati0j_1 :P~ci,de ~ht to b.a:ve ·been conducted. Jince none 1-,as C?,rried out tl.:.o da;.:;;;er tl-,2,t the complainant may ha:ve erred ca1mot be <Nel;'ru.led. T'i1ere u,.w t:1erefore a need f o:r cbrrob-Oratian in this Caf:JG '.lli.e find:i.ng of tt.G wo,;';;c::.:. oould have b00:n of corroborative value but as I. have _demostrated t'..,.c defence ca:-c;e :.1;;~d a mojor contradictiono Th0 unresolved controdicti011: cre~tes a doubt 011 t:.1e cred.ibil_i ty of tD.e evidence of the 2nd accused t:iat ~ bou.J,t.t t]~,.e wc1,tcll from the appellantq / O o~ oo o o3 ·t~ . ' i-.;. ,'• ., Furth0rmore lack of evidence a/3 to 1-1hen e:~ectJ.;y the watch. waJ3 · sold by the appellant precludes the court from. evokinc t:.'le doctriJle of recent possession even ii' it ·viuro believed that t'.1e appellant :was found in possession. Learned 3tate Attorney was of the vi0i•i t;..t2,t the conviction was suriportable because the j,,;0.;:1tif ica:tion ·in ter view was proper and the sale of the .watch did ta.~ place as alleged by the second accused., With due respect to tht, lea;ri1ed State A.tt::,rney Ml•s.Shoo the fact , that the robbery was cn,rried out by many :people 211d · t:ie complainant could not explain how moon l ~ t aided h~r "Go ;Jee the appeliant inside the 4ouse and what :i:;ie,r.,t b.e played outs:i_c1.e the house I find that this was not a case where the., identification can be said to h2,ve been free from difficul tie&o 3~ccndly the story aboL:t the sale of' the· watch has been contradictor;y to 01:i -~ztent that. one is entitled to doubt its.veracity and believe that the seconc~ accusGd mco/ ha:v-e lied to nave himself from convictj_()Ue In the result I hold far,,t the charge war:: not :proved beyond reasonable doubto A,Qcor~:i.nc;ly '\p.e conviction io quashed and sentence set asideo 'Ihe ap::,::elle,u:t sb.ovJ.c. be set free u:.1less he is otb.~r.viae lawfully detained in rer:::pect of li).1other mattoro Ju.dgJIJ.ant lleliver<➔ d in Oj_)en ~ r t in tL.o r::::'Bsence of the aJ_)il&llant and l!b::so Bhoo State Attorney !or ~ .liGpu.blic ..