19961003 TZHC Dar es Salaam

0 • - • • IN THE HIGH COUHT OF 'rA.NZANIA AT DAR ES SALA.l'..M APPELLATE JURISDICTION (PC) CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.25 OF 1995 (Original Kinondoni District Court Criminal Appeal • No.58 of 1995, Or~inal Kinondoni Primary Court Criminal Case No. 1218 of 1995) _ Trl.8 OIREC"'OR OF 1-)UBLIC Pi'lOSECUTIONS APPJi:Ll.,ANT VERSUS SAIDI HAMISI •••••••••••••••••oo•••••oo••oo••o••·••~o.• RESPONDtNT JUDGMENT ~2!:1I t J •: The trial primary court convicted the respondent of robbery contrary to sections 285 and 286 and sentenced him to 15 yea:rs under the Minimum Sentences Act. On the first appeal to the District Court, judgment was quashed and sentence set aside. The Director of Public Prosecutions is disatisfied with this finding h.:mce decided to appeal to this Court. It is not.in dispute that on·thc mat8rial night respondent was a driver of a taxi with registration Number TZD 7973 which was hired by the complainant. What is in dispute is the allegation thnt.on the:w.ay ·r,;spond,mt robbed the complainant of her Camera 9 golden chain, earings and Cash Shs.20,000/=. The evidence in sup~ort of this allegation is that of the complainant herself. She narrated to the court the ordeal she underwent on that fateful night. Short distance after the complainant had boarded the vehicle respondent decided to drive towards a different ' direction from her agreed destination. When questioned, respondent to],d har th.s.t · he was going to collect. some peqple anct th en .he would take . ... ... -· . 2 ' her to her destination. On the way he collected three women despite complainant's resistance. And with the assistance of the said women r~spondent assault·.;.. the complainant and subsequently' relieved her of the property in questionG She was-thrown out of th~ vehicle and respondent and h~r collaborators _drova off abarnioning the complainant helplessly. She was later given a lift to police station by'a. passing-by ~ . v,,,hicle. Respondent was arrested about three days later. \,Jh,m~;his ---;: house was s0arched he was found with a camora cover and cash shs. 20~-000/=. Complainant managed to identify the said cove; as that of fer stolen Camera. According to the record there was an inscription of the complainant's name inside the said camera cover. In allowing the appeal, the learned district magistrate entertained some doubt on the identification of the respondent. With the evid~nce on r~cord, the identification of the respondent is not respectifully in issue at all. At no time has- the respondent denied that on the mat<:lrial time he was hired by the compla,inant. The -only possible issue of identification would have been on the camera cover. However, th,.;re is sufficient evidence in support of the complainant's claim that the said f;Over is that of her robbed camera. It has rui inscription of her name, a fact which was not challenged by the respond,mt during the trial• The poSS8SSion by the - respondent of the said cover which was proved to be part of the items stolen during the alleged robbery which was committed about three days before its recovery lea.ds to an impaccable conclusion that respondent is the culprit for the alleged robbery. The trial primary court was justified in convicting the respondent. In conclusion this appeal is allowed. The acquittal by the respondent court is quashed; the conviction and santence as pronounced by the trial primary court are restored. Respondent to serve a sentence' of 15 years imprisonment. JUDGE 3/10/96 For the DPP - Miss Kiwanga. \ Raspondent: Presenta