jacob mlongo others vs republic 1999 tzhc 38 15 january 1999

TN T H K H T G H C O U R T OF T A N Z A N I A AT D A R FR SAT, A A M ORT.MTNAr, A P P E A L .NO...240. O F .1 9 95 ( O r i g i n a t i n g f r o m T l a l a D i s t r i c t C o u r t at K i s u t u C r i m i n a l Case? No. 215 of 1995) J A C O R M L O N O O & 7 O T H E R S ......................... A P P E L L A N T S VERSUS T H E R E P U B L I C ....................................... R E S P O N D E N T J U D G E M E N T KALEGKYA. J. The Appellants. Jacob Mlonga @ Benkichwa. Saidi Mlonga 0 M a D e s a . T sma i 1 Sal urn P Kindonga.. flastorv Sudi . Saidi Salim P Ki D u a K i o a r a Mwinyimkuu.. P e t e r M a t h e w a n d Hal f a n ! O m ari @ Daudi (s t y l e d 1 s t - 8 t h A p p e l l a n t s respectively) having been convicted by the Kisutu Resident M a g i s t r a t e ' s Court (Kimaro. P R M ) for a r m e d r o b b e r y c \ s 2 85 a nd 286 t h e y ar e a s s a i l i n g t h a t d e c i s i o n . E a c h of the A p p e l l a n t s w as s e nt en ced to t h i r t y y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h 12 s t r o k e s of c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t s a v e t he 6t h Appellant., who., o w i n g to h i s age., e s t i m a t e d to be b e t w e e n 17 a n d 20 y e a r s w a s s e n t e n c e d to 4 y e a r s imprisonment. Undisputed facts in t h i s m a t t e r a r e t h a t on 16\2\95.. at a b o u t 2.00 a.m.. P W 1 1s h o u s e w a s s t o r m e d b y a g r o u p of a b o u t 15 thieves who. apart f r o m i n j u r i n g th e o c c u p a n t s i n c l u d i n g P W1 stole various articles whose value is e s t i m a t e d at s h s . 2.022.000/=. The robbed premises had two sections - a main house and a rear house. At t h e t i m e of r o b b e r y PW1 lived in t h e m a i n h o u s e w h i l e P W 2 . h i s son, Tutu H a s s a n , P W 4 . Mangapi Hassan. an o t h e r son . and P W 5 M a f u k o Ching'ang'a.. a tenant., o c c u p i e d the rear . The premises were lighted. W h i l e w i t h d r a w i n g th e r o b b e r s t h r e w a w a y a v i d e o d e c k and a fan. In t h e p r o c e s s of stealing., the r o b b e r s 1 i n j u r e d P W 1 on t h e head; P W 2 on h i s le ft an d r i g h t h a n d a n d P W 5 o n h i s l e f t hand. P W 1 . 2. 4 and 5 n a m e d the A p p e l l a n t s as h a v i n g b e e n a m o n g t h e g r o u p of r o b b e r s w h i l e P W 6 a police officer who was on patrol, maintained to h a v e i d e n t i f i e d 1st and 2nd A p p e l l a n t b y h e l p of a motor vehicle head l a m p li ghts . He s t a t e d f u r t h e r t h a t th e 1st a c c u s e d h a d a d e c k w h i l e th e 2nd a c c u s e d had a fan b o t h of w h i c h w e r e d r o p p e d w h e n t h e y {1st. and 2nd a c c u s e d ) w e r e f l o o d e d w i t h m o t o r v e h i c l e lights. On appeal to t h i s c o u r t th e A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e d t h a t as t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w a s m a d e at night, t h e trial court misdirected itself in c o n v i c t i n g on u n c o r r o b o r a t e d e v i d e n c e ; that the evidence relied upon w a s of just, f a m i l y m e m b e r s h e n c e n o t s u f f i c i e n t to f o u n d a c o n v i c t i o n ; t h a t p r o o f of injury allegedly o c c a s s i o n e d on PW1 ,. 2. 3 s h o u l d h a v e b e e n m a d e b y t h e a ct ua l t e s t i m o n y of th e d o c t o r c o n c e r n e d and n ot b y m e r e l y PF3; that u n d e r Cap. 13. T h e C h i l d r e n and Y o u n g P e r s o n s O r d i n a n c e , convicts u n d e r 17 y e a r s s h o u l d not be c o n d e m n e d to c u s t o d i a l s e n t e n c e s and f i n a l l y t h a t b e i n g f i r s t o f f e n d e r s s e n t e n c i n g t h e m to c o r p o r a l punishment as w e l l w a s il l e g a l . While Appellants argued their appeals in p e r s o n . Ms Sehe , S t a t e A t t o r n e y , r e p r e s e n t e d the Re p u b l i c \ R e s p o n d e n t . T h e l a t t e r supported convictions in e n t i r e t y o b s e r v i n g that, t h e r e w a s p r o p e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the A p p e l l a n t s . I s h o u l d o u t r i g h t l v b r u s h a s i d e the c o m p l a i n t s r e g a r d i n g the alleged fami 1 v - m e m b e r s ' e v i d e n c e an d the f a i l u r e to call the doctor fo r l a c k of m erit . There is no law w h i c h p r e s c r i b e s t h a t family members' e v i d e n c e c a n n o t be r e l i e d u p o n to f o u n d a conviction in a c h a r g e for r o b b e r y c o m m i t t e d at n i g h t . What is important is th e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s involved and also t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s o r r o u n d i n g a p a r t i c u l a r ca se. J a sson R w e m b a n a i r a c a s e.. [1975. L R T No. 26] c i t e d b y th e A p p e l l a n t s did no t lay d o w n a n y s u n h p r i n c i p l e e x c e p t s a y i n g t h a t in t h a t case,, r e g a r d b e i n g ba d to its s p ec ia l circumstances independent w i t n e s s e s were required. A l s o tbe q u e s t i o n of c a l l i n g in a d o c t o r to d e p o s e p h y s i c a l 1y c o u l d not a r i s e for t h e r e w a s no d i s p u t e r e g a r d i n g the i n j u r i e s o c c a s i o n e d nor did th e A p p e l l a n t s r a i s e the m a t t e r at all d u r i n g the trial . T n o w turn to the q u e s t i o n of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . While a p p r e c i a t i n g the c l e a r p r i n c i p l e of the law w h i c h e v o l v e d t h r o u g h case law, including those pronounced in W a z i r i A m a n i v R (1980) T L R 250 an d R v T i n g a K e l e l e (1974) F.RT, an d w h i c h are to t h e e f f e c t t h a t b e f o r e the e v i d e n c e of v is ua l identification when c o n d i t i o n s of f o c u s ar e unfavourable., i.e. at n i g h t , is r e l i e d u p o n to f o u n d a c o n v i c t i o n the c o u r t s h o u l d w a r n i t s e l f of its d a n g e r s a n d m u s t be s a t i s f i e d that it is w a t e r - t i g h t , for, a w i t n e s s m a y be h o n e s t , g e n u i n e and yet m i s t a k e n (A b d a l l a h b i n W e n d o and a n o t h e r v R 20 E .A .f!.A . .. 168) in th e i n s t a n t c a s e I a m s a t i s f i e d t h a t th e trial court prop e r l y directed itself and analysed in d e t a i l s the e v i d e n c e at h a n d b e f o r e c o n v i c t i n g . I m u s t e m p h a s i s e t h a t the legal p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g th e i s s u e d o riot p r o v i d e t h a t of n e c e s s i t y t h e r e m u s t be c o r r o b o r a t i o n bu t r a t h e r t h e y a l e r t the court, th at in c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s it m a y be necessary while in o t h e r s it m a y not. All th e s a m e h o w e v e r th e court, m u s t be s a t i s f i e d t h a t th e e v i d e n c e is w a t e r - t i g h t as regards i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a c c u s e d . In t h i s ca se, the trial c o u r t w e n t i n t o d e t a i l s to a s c e r t a i n how each accused (appellant) was identified. First , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t it w a s at n i g h t t h e e v i d e n c e is c l e a r t h a t th e s o r r o u n d i n g s had l i g h t s b o t h i n s i d e an d o u t s i d e . Secondly, th e e v i d e n c e s h o w s th at th e i d e n t i f y i n g w i t n e s s e s (P W 1 , 2, 4 an d 5) ha d a m p l e ti me to i d e n t i f y the r a i d e r s as t h e y s t a y e d in t h e i r v i c i n i t y for q u i t e s o m e t i m e . In fact, P W 4 , had all the u n d i s t u r b e d c h a n c e at. h i s d i s p o s a l . He had m a n a g e d to r u n o u t of th e h o u s e b e f o r e r a i d e r s c a m e to h i s room. He t o o k c o v e r in t h e s orrounding banana trees and followed closely what was taking pl ace. Thirdly, the a c c u s e d s w e r e n ot n e w to t h e s e w i t n e s s e s (P W t . 2, 4 and 5). Th e A p p e l l a n t s l i ved in t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d . T h e y k n e w e a c h o t h e r wel 1 . As r e g a r d s the 1.st and 2nd a c c u s e d there is e v e n c o r r o b o r a t i o n in th e e v i d e n c e of PW6,. w h o w a s on pa t r o l . H e d e p o s e d to h a v e b e e n in V i c i n i t y w h e n p e o p l e w e r e ch as in g robbers. He deposed., and the trial c o u r t b e l i e v e d him, and I find no r e a s o n to c o n c l u d e o t h e r w i s e , th at w h i l e r u n n i n g the 1st. and 2nd a c c u s e d s go t c a u g h t up in the f l o o d l i g h t s of t he v e h i c l e he w a s ridi ng; t h e y d r o p p e d th e V i d e o D e c k and fan t h e y w e r e c a r r y i n g and run away. PW 6 c o l l e c t e d the a r t i c l e s w h i c h w e r e d u l y i d e n t i f i e d b y the w i t n e s s e s as b e i n g s o m e of the a r t i c l e s th at had b e e n s t o l e n f r o m t h e i r house. F r o m t h e t o t a l i t y of the a b o v e e v i d e n c e T am s a t i s f i e d t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w a s w a t e r - t i g h t and that the trial court was justified in f o u n d i n g a c o n v i c t i o n th er e o n . Finally, we c o m e to the q u e s t i o n of s e n t e n c e . W h i l e the c o m p l a i n t r e g a r d i n g i n f l i c t i o n of c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t h a s no m e r i t as th e trial c o u r t did not act in e x c e s s of its p o w e r s , e q u a l l y th e c o m p l a i n t r e g a r d i n g s e n d i n g to p r i s o n a c o n v i c t a g e d 17 y e a r s is w i t h o u t legs on w h i c h to stand. The trial courts' r e c o r d s s h o w s th at the q u e s t i o n of a g e w a s not t a k e n lig h t l y . Th e c o n v i c t s w e r e s e n t to the d o c t o r to h a v e their age ascertained. T h e s e w e r e the 3rd, 4th and 6th a c c u s e d ' s (n ow a p p e l l a n t s g o i n g by s a m e n u m b e r s ) . A f t e r d u e e x a m i n a t i o n t he D o c t o r c o n c l u d e d that th e 3rd and 4th a c c u s e d s (Appellants) were e a c h a g e d b e t w e e n 20 and 22 y e a r s w h i l e the 6th a c c u s e d w a s a g e d between 17 a n d 20 years. T r e a d i n g on t h i s the trial court, m e t e d out the r e q u i r e d s e n t e n c e on 3rd and 4th a c c u s e d s . Du e to u n c e r t a i n t y of t h e a g e the 6th a c c u s e d w a s s e n t e n c e d to o n l y 4 years imprisonment. I see n o t h i n g w r o n g w i t h t h e s e steps . 4 In l a u n c h i n g t h e a b o v e attack., r e g a r d i n g sentence., the Appellants r e f e r r e d to t h e (C AT) c a s e of M o b a m e d K e s s y 0 N e n g a and 3 Others. Hr. Appeal No. 98 of 1 9 9 2 (Dsm - R eg ist ry , unreported). That authority however prescribes nothing different f r o m w h a t t h e tr ial court did in t h i s c a s e . Tn t h a t case., a g e s of t w o of t h e A p p e l l a n t s w e r e u n c e r t a i n . However, unlike the present case, n o a t t e m p t s w e r e m a d e to a s c e r t a i n t h e i r age. They had been convi c t e d w i t h R o b b e r y w ith v i o l e n c e and s e n t e n c e d to 30 years imprisonment e a ch . Tn r e d u c i n g t h e i r s e n t e n c e s , t h e c o u r t held.. " ..in v i e w of t h e u n o e r f a i n i t y of t h e a g e of the 2nd a n d 3rd a D o e l l a n t (2nd appellant, g a v e h i s a g e as 16 a n d 3 r d ' a p p e l l a n t in h i s d e f e n c e is r e c o r d e d as 17 vear.s o l d ) t h e s e a p p e l l a n t s s h o u l d n o t have been s e n t e n c e d u n d e r t h e m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e s Act as they were aDD ar en t.lv b e l o w the a g e of e i g h t e e n v e a r s . . . . * .................. Tn v i R W °f t h e i r a g e t h e i r s e n t e n c e s of 30 v e a r s impr iso nment, is s e t a s i d e . T h e y a r e in s u b s t i t u t i o n t h e r e o f e a c h s e n t e n c e d to 4 y e a r s i.mpr i s o n m e n t " . T r e a d i n g on this, an d T h e C h i l d r e n an d Y o u n g P e r s o n s O r d i n a n c e Can. 13 t h e r e w a s n o t h i n g ill e g a l about sending 6th A p p e l l a n t to prison because there was c e r t a i n t y r e g a r d i n g his age - he was a b o v e 16 y e a r s h e n c e n ot a " y o u n g p e r s o n " , for, that term covers onlv those between 12 a n d 16 y e a r s . For r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e the a p p e a l s s t an d dismi sse d. (F.. R. Kalegeva) JUDGE Judaement. d e l i v e r e d in t h e p r e s e n c e of Mr. Mdeme, State Attorney, today the 15th January. 1999. (T,. R. K a l e g e v a ) JUDOF 15\ 1\ 99 5