19950000 TZCA Dar es Salaam

, IN TH:Z COURT OF ·..APPEAI, OF T.PJrnANIA i -◄ . AT DAR ES SJ>J:J.A.Aff ' '. o\, (CORAN: . KISAilTGA, J .A., OlI.A:i, J .A;,, .And l\'INZAVAS,. J .A.) r{:: R . ,.: CRI?i'.IN.A.L APPEAL NO. 101 DF 1993 fil?~~-. tr ijj·' '· :i' AND:2.Z'i' 1:IA'rHIA3 l\1AZENGO -• • • • • • • • . • • • APPELLA.L"il'T 1.· I ; AND - - -'.....j ~ ;I . THE REPUBI,IC RESPONDENT ~·~. ~1, ~ ~ -.:J , ' (Appeal from. the Decisj_on of the Hi.,sh .....~ Court o~ Tanzania at !·.·!oro.;oro) (Bahati ·, J. ) elated ·i;he 21st da;y: of: ;•.:a;y- 1 19S 3 ::•n·---- \ . l.11 C:r:i.J:,J.in3l Se □ sions Case No. 54 of 1992 JUDGI;;ENT or 'rH:C COUUT h . KISA1'WA, J .A.: This a.ppeci.l arises froL.1 the appellant I s conviction of_ murder anC:. the sentence of death p2.0sed on hir:;_ by the ,. • ).i·gh Cou:rt (Bahati, J.) s~ tting at J::fo1•ozoro. Ess,~ntia..lly the facts were that a watch;:ian v1ho was 311~rdin~_ ~ert.:1,in J?J~e:;;1.ise:=;;_..2,.t. 1_1.i3ht ,.,as found murdered o:q. the following D01'11in~. The pre1,1:Looo which he wao ,3Uard- in,; were fouad brn:.,en :i.nto aJ1d t·l;c3bf:-J of property stolen frm,1 the re. Ire a 'bout 5. 30 that sa;:- .e ,;.wrning the 1 appellant was in-i:;e1~cepted by 1:.1ili tia :c.en. He ,~a carr;in6 a box containing :1.teills of property so,,,e of which were identified as havj.n_:; been stolen fror,: the burzled p;r,eai .es. The appellant 1 s defence at the trial was a flat denial.. He claii,1ecl that at the 1,1aterial time on • iJ· -· / in question he Has returning hone from his wor?:~ as a watcht1a11.. 0:1. the way he found som.e militia 1.ie:?.1 with a box lyine; aro..:11d. which they told. hiw to carry to the police statio~1. He ~: ..1.ew ·nothinc; about this box and i·ts contentG, a11e. he was surprised when later on he was told I I'- . that he had :,:il1ed so:u:eone. The t:t:La1 jud3e found that the appellant was ar:1on~ the ba:,1d.i·ce who broke into the premises which the deceasec1 naG ,-;.;:.a:;.~.:lin.g, stole property from there i $,nd lrillecl ·i:;lle deceased. In comin,; to that conclusion the lea:mecl judc:;e relied o.;.1 the ...e.xtra-judicial stn.ter,1ent ---- --- of the appellant to the Jushce of ·the Peace j.n wh:l.ch the appella..'i1.t D..Cbii t-t;ed that tlw mili tio. men arratrbed him with z. box; it is that same box which contained i te;;J.S of :9:::.•ope:.:ty which were identified as havin~; been s·l;olen froi~ ·che l)remises which the deceased was t;uarding. In thi0 appeal the appellant was represented by Miss :Bayona, ].ea1;.1.ed. advocate, while the recpondent . Republic w2,s :;_se:p::cesentetl by 1.::x. Haali, learned State _ Attor:.1ey. The 1~e:i:lo1·a11du:,1, of appeal contained fm.1.r .grounds of appe<1l raisinG essentinlly the issue of the r I insp.fficienc:;0 o:i:' evidence, arid in her· oral submissions ,.. ' Bayone, o.Lso 1:.:1s13 - focu.ssed 011 the question of lac:.: of I corroboration.• - I ·J The conviction waa ba0ed solely on ·lihc appellant Is j l extra-judicial statement. The learned trial judce found that ill. that stateaent the appellant ,,1acle a confession ... 'j ··~ I ,+ • . .. . ... /3 I . ' f; ~. .. .At, : ... :, ..•.•· . . .. , I t •ff"!~ - -•~t,1 -~+:,,-·!." :Y;17',~..,.l'1~ '' ,>;,,: . ;' i•.,'-"•·:· . '( .,·.:::.\.· ..~. \"~ )t • ,'lr..,.,..t ·-.~ 3 which could. not be but true. The1·e was sufficient evidence to su1)po~ct ·i;he finding tha~~-J~e appellant was intercepted at about 5. 30 2..m, carr.1in.5 a 'oox con-tcd.nin3 i:bems of Pl~operty which \'ie:r·o stolen fron the pre1,uses wl1ioh the de.ceased was ;::;·L1a1•ding that night. As already stated, the trial juc-:..,;e went furthe1~ and found that the appellant was am.on:; the bandits who :perpetrated the atrocitie □ on the 1Jrerni □ es that nicht. The question is whether that finding is m.~p:portable. Niss Bayo!).a said H is not, and we think ohe is ri._;ht. In hi3 ex·i;ra-judicial statement che appelJ.ant after afu:ci:i:;·c::_:1:::.; that he was ca:;.'rying the box at the tine he wac :l.:1te1~cepted by the uilitia, went on to say that that 'box nas handed to hi.in by a co-watch,1a11 of the day whereby ·i;he appelJ.an·t was to sell ·the content0 of the box aml. the proceeds ·bhereof to be shared between the appellcmt a:c1C-:. the said co-watchman of the a.eceased, T:1iss Bayona su'bnj.tted tha"G this 1aight 'Nell be trv.e. rre agree 1 becat,i.ce there was evidence that the deceased used to have a co-watch,:a..--i on the pre10.ises 1 but such co-watch.:1a:n ,·-,as 21ot called to c¢. ve evidence. Thus it cannot be s2.~.0. :fo1~ ce1·tain that the appellcnt 1)2,:.cticipated in the l::iJ.J.::..11~ of the deceased. On the evidence 1 it iG possible thc,.t the deceased way have been 1:1urc1ered by person or pe;_•nonc who stole the .;oods and passed them to the appellau-i; w~:_thout the appallan·i; tal~inz any pa.rt in su.ch nu:rder-;---· • • j •• /4 J,.' • , I ,/' 'Ve are therefore sa~sfied ,thp,t the evidence on I / / record'was not suffi,cient to sustain.the conviction bf I murder. Th2:i; convictioa is accord.in::;ly q_uashed and the sentence o:i: death set aside. Howe-..re:;." 1 the evidence was ample to sup:po:ct· , conviction for the··1a·sser offence of receivi;.1:3 p:;_~operty' . r .. .. stolen or_\•.n1.J.~~:f}llly · ~bt?,insid c.o.u.txar.f to section. 311 ( 1 ) , I of the Penal Cocle. For, according to the extra-j1.1d.icial 0 . statement the appellant said :L11 ef:feo'b ·bha:t he w1.is / .• invited by the co-watcru,1a;1 of the deceased to co;i1e to the p:cemisec on the it,aterie.l ni~ht to receive stolen 6 o~ds. ·:re ·i;hei~efore co;1vict the appellant for the lesser. offence of receiving propert;-y· otolen or u.nlawfully -~ ,4 . ;· ~ ~ obtained. L':1 doin~;- :::o we are satisfied. that the app!=Jllant ·i •. ~d adeq_uate o)?portuni ty at the t::..~j_al to defend ·hi;~1.self 4;1 1' •',, against th:;.::; char3"e. Indeed he clid exercise that righ·i; ' I when he disor,11e1..7- the box and asserted that it was merely ; :!• A' forced or pJ.,:,::.rt;erl on hii-1. by the ;::,ilitia. ''j For thi.o offence the appellant is sentenceJ. to ,. ,,· \ \. 1; 9 years 1 _ :L·:p:d.0011:i,ien.t. ~;' ···~;~_ .., I 1.,. >~~'i ~-1, DATED 2.t DAH ES SALA.AI.I tM.s day of· 1995. ·1 ~~.i ·.; .,~ '• ,,.. I '"'-• I certif;:;=- ·i;ha·i; this is a true copy of the oric:;inal.· ·' ~ '.. & r,,,- .,(, ,.' ... .......... • ~-.~·"...\.;,,. . . 5 I .Appa.rentJ.y there wa.s nt suggesti~-·-'?,Gl\?e al,►~ evidence that /· . .; I PW.1 and Pif.2 had reason to tell liGs against -£he appellants se as te oaus& them, their 'll?Uaing. It is -9\ll' view tha.t f~r !"l'i.cumo& to be. M -ee.nsistent the enly .. perjury, must be truth. eomman d.en&mi.na.to.r, ea.ye ... Ye a.re .sa.tisf'ied. . in eux•'own minds that tl:ie _l)e ssibiliq .£ mi.s.1;ake.n ~tif'ica:tion ef the appe-liants-as--among -the- bandi tsvrllo ·burgled the l).ouse on the _md.tertal );dght and killed thG "Wit ~-~ »ae ~P.61'1,i •~~ by the lea.med judge. In ~hB ~ t.~ appeal ia di wsrn:1 ssed- ~ its - M l ~ and. :I.♦• i." so crdared. ..- .. • .·• · JUSTICE &F APPEAL ..... L.111. MFALILA · ;: JUSTfCE·· c,p,:'-APPEAL. D. z. LUWVA ~eEAl'lM l "rtify "i~-t t~s is a. ma ~PY of the •riginal. . - ........ J ,1/i I • . JJJ,j~J . I -·• . . l L. B. KALEGEYi. ) SENIOR DEPUl'Y REnISTBAR