20070918 TZCA Dar es Salaam

·····IN THE--COURT-Of--AP.P-EAL OF-TANZANIA ·-. -·-···•-····------·--·--- ---·--·-' AT DAR ES SALAAM {CORAM: KAJI, J. A., RlltAKANGWA, J. A. AND KILEO J. A.). CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 37 OF 2006 JACKSON MAGIGE @ JACK CHAM BILI ........ ........ APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ........................•...................... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) (Mihayo, J.) Dated the 15th day of September, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2004. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 21 ST Aug, & 18 th Sep. 2007 RUTAKANGWA, J. A. This is a s_econd appeal from the decision of the trial District Court of Ilala. In that case the appellant, together with three other ~ -perso~s,- was being charged with the offence of.armed-robbery..c/ss --------~---. 285 and 286 of the Penal code. The four had denied the charge at .the commencement of trial. Two were acquitted at the close of the prosecution case. The appellant and one Maige Nyakiwaro ' : convicted as charged. They were each sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment. _!hey were also ordered to p_ay Tshs. 68,36~,000/= as compensation. The appellant and his colleague were aggrieved by the conviction and sentences. They jointly appealed to the High Court. The High court, allowed the appeal of Maige. It dismissed in its entirety the appellant's appeal. The appellant found it worthwhile to attempt a second bite in this Court We have read the entire evidence before the trial District Court. We have digested the submissions of both parties to this appeal, It has emerged that the appellant was unwillingly dragged beyond the thresholds of these temples of justice. We shall presently demonstrate why we are saying so. The travails of the appellant, according to the evidence on Kipawa area, Dar es Salaam city, on the evening of 18th March, 2002. As found by the two courts below, on that day at f3bout 8.30 pm. some moslem worshippers, mostly workers at the said factory, had 0 --·- - ---. -- - I, .- ' '·-·-· .. -----·--- ' ·.' .. ,, .. •···"• . "·-- ................ _. ..............,.. ------·----•· ·,·!''_···.·_.·_ .·_. __ . ..:: .....11·-~.....~.: ...:... _.............-.. ,.....·;.'_: '-·-· - .. . .. ,..... ·:·,· 'I· · I · ' - r 1: , i I . . - . - .·. . .. . i . . .1.I .. . . ----· ·-·"' ______ -.- -- gathered---at-.. a•-mesque-":(within---the-.f9,ctory) .for ...-thek .. ;.evooiAg-- .';Jnsha -- ----------- --·------ ... . '' ·. - '. . ' . ' ' :, ',·, .··· ! . . ' sa/atul'' prayers. These included i Selemani Moh:amedi (PWl), · ,' ! ·---·--·-----.. -·--- ----------··-- .,., ··-----·----···-· ·.•1--------·--·-----··-- _, ____ .. Mohamed Mbaraka (PW2) and Salhinai Lubya (PW4). / . .' -----·--:·. ~~·.·_:_.~: ·.: _· -_--:· __·· ...:·· ......· . ' : . :......... : :··•(· ... -;_: _- :. ~:---~:-· · ·:·. J:·· ·:. ; ' . As they were wmdmg. up the prayers , a voice Ifrom their rear . I I • • ·! I commanded all of them to lie on the i,floor face down\fVards. They all i i complied. The mosque was well lit ir,side. Then thrte bandits, who ' ' i ;. were armed with a panga and a rifle, stormectl the mosque. I . ' . 11 ! • I Mohamed Mbaraka (PW2), who was the Salesman, ;was cut with a . i ' i ' I panga on his left hand and was forced by the bandit~ to lead them to II ,I his office, which· he· did. 1: I i I Once in PW2's office the ba~dits, at gun pdint and on with !, i I 1 threats of killing him, requested PW2 to open the cash safe. He I:, . . I I . I 1 complied. He was then hit hard on the head with a/''rungu". He fell 1 i' I down semi~coriscious. · The robb~rs then made ~way ·with Tshs. . - . . .. I . . ·. . ·. . I I . 68,360,000/=. The robbery was. then reported at Buguruni Police . .. . . i:. I . . I ·. Station. The .'police mounted irives~igatiori's.\Nh.icff··1~a-to lhe··•arrest'of ! I, ! th . Maige by D/cpl. Malula (PWS) on 14 April, 200~. · According to ·_ . . . . ! • . .· I . '1 PWS,· ·it··was . ·Maige who . ment,ioned . . . the appellant- . I who ·was . . . I .. I . . , I . i1 1.· '. 0 I I I J ' . ........................ ---·· . . ....,. . . . . . . . . . .J·_ .: . I / . .·.... ......:.... . :.f. . ........,... :,.. ,:,.·.:.....: I . ' ·;:· l I, I I - . :11 . . I ; . . .. ... •,-••: .. supJ3or-t·-t-A€·-EooviEtion;· •he-seemed .. . . ·. .· . -tq: ask himseff-.---Before••resolvi-ng-•-· ...:----···· ....... .. · . . I . . . . . . ·. 1 this issue he· first dealt ·with the taution statemeInts · of the . two . 1: . _ _ _ ...........·-···· ............ - ....·--·-·· ...... -- r--·.. -·... -.......... ___.... L.. . . .........,. ........ - ........... --- . ----· .····· ... - .... ---·appellants ............ before him which had been tendered irl evidence amid . . . :................. ; ......... ·-·· ·- ....~ .. i·· . . ............... ··•-·· ......... '·'·-·-··:~ .. .c_...... .... •. ... . . . . . .... . . ... •»•t·~- .. --~ ...... - ....: .. ·; ·. ,. . . .. . -·· ·-·· . . protests from the appellants. . H~ was sat1sf1ed that the said 1 statements were involuntarily made bnd he disregarbed them. We, . I: I . too, are satisfied that he rightly reje9ted them. He V\fas then left with I the evidence of visual identification. He was· s~tisfied that the ~ . ! appellant; in spite of being a strange r to all the prosecution witnesses 1 . I . . . i . ! . . who witnessed the robbery, was adequately identi~ed by PW1 and I I PW2, as they •saw him with a pistol at the seen~ of crime. He i . . I,i I accordingly dismissed his appeal. i ' i On the appellant Maige the learned judge had/this to say:- , . "... the evidence against him il not enough. Tfi,ere is no . I w_itness who pointed a fipger clearly at;. the _z1d . appellant. ... -···· Since this Court ... I has found . . . . that the caution . ... , ... J statements were wrongly relied on, their removal 1leaves the · . . . I . I evidence against the zid. appellant inexistent. The, conviction -·--·--·.. - ·• ··. ·,.. ----~-~ .. _....,.........,....,-.--~~ ......·........ "......._... --.................. ,... · .... i ·· .. · ·· -·- -.~ ---. - --· r-·· . . . -·· · .-·--·...... ····-- ·· ·• _ of the Z1d appellant .cannot be sustained. I quash the . 1 conviction against the second appellant and set aside the . I. . . I . ... __ _ ·" ~e~~e~~e '~ · J ./ · {, I' ~;~~~T:,~~~~~1~f;~;;~~~g • ~ . ' 1-:- ·- -.. . ·.~ __ , .' "-;-" : : : - ~ - ~ : ·-::-:::---•~::-.•-,- •••. • . , • • •• . :; -,••-.-. .. :--;; - N . . ·.. ••a:-:-•• :•• . ·,•~ ... ,. ·. 1 .--·~~- .· f ·. <:_ ... . ,.,.:·.. :"- . ·, . r'.. - . -. . . -- .·.•:-- ··-· ·- .·· .. - ·-··-· ·-·--· ··.·.,-~--••---·· -· . . -, • .)I_;_ ··~ •• ,... -~.-,-· I ·./ . I . . . . .. .. . I . . . four grounds of appeal. Their essence is that the two courts below · . . . . . I : . .. ·------·-· ·---··· .. . ...... ······-----·-·- .. -,···- --···-~----·-- ·••···-··· · ··- · ·· · ·I ·· ·· · · ·-·-····--- ··--·· ··•····· ~.- - - - ·~-:- ~~.-~~·.-· . erred in finding him guilty as· charged on the basis of very weak -~:· - ·:·· . . . . .. . ·., ... ' ·:···· .. - ;-~-~~:_:_~-. :·_· .... . . . .. . · evidence. To him they fell into this· error because they failed· to .· ·;~-~-.~: .... ··: . ··:··--.· - . ··'--·· .. -·-·-·· .. :: . . ... I . I . objectively evaluate the evidence b~fore them. I~ his very short submission he claimed that he was Flot adequately i~entified as one I . of the robbers. 1 Appearing for the respondent Republic wa;s Miss Msabila,. .. I learned State Attorney. She did not :seek to support the conviction of , I . . • . . i . . the appellant. ·To lier, the robbery ~as committed at/ night and under terrifying circumstances, by people who were strangers to the I . .. . . . I identifying witnesses .. For this reason there. was· neyd to conduct an · . I identification. parade ·before the witnesses pu.rporte8 to .identify. the . '. i . . I .. . appellant in the· dock, she insisted. As no sUJch parade was . , . I conducted, she found· it difficult :ito believe···tha·{the· 1den6fyfrig . . . .. I witnesses were not mistaken in their . identification. Iiof the appellant. . ! . · ,.· __ · She accordinglyurged us to allow the· appeal i·n its-entrrety: . ·, . . . • . . . . ,. ! . ... I II . I . . . . •.• ·! . . - - - ~-- .·. : -~- . .c.:.. -'-~·---_;_--~~ ··-:· . ,'- .,---'-;--_-~-.~:~.:~-----~-:_:_-~ -:::._c.:':j . - ·--::· -- :: _--~~"-'~·-':~0-..:::..a_~-~-.: .:: -· -·~-~ . -~-~:6_·_-_::_ ~.=_--:~~.:.."=:":'--~~-.:- ;~~~~7~~~~~ ::~:-:-·-:.,-'·'·:-=: :,c,·:'::-·-:·/ •7:t~~g ;li-g~-~~~~~~~~s¥2 I . . .. ··.•·--f.··-··•··•· ····· ·•·-.····-·.· . . ··•· ··•·:·······•···-,·,· ··-··· i i I . - . - . . . . . . .·. - . .. ·. . .I -I . - . ----~.~--- ----- ·---- --·- ~--There--is-n0··-d ispute-- on the·· fc1ct-that-a~rot?be ry::wc11s-cornitted _· ·by --- ·· · ···· ···---· --··---·- , I ·. ' ' ·_ .· ·. . ' . . ' i' ' . ', bandits who · were strangers · to the' identifying witnesses under - ·····-···- --·····-·- ...' - -----~ - -.--·--· ··-·--··· .... ,': ·- .-. . --. .·-_ ·-·-li -- -.. - ·~ ~---- terrifying circumstances. PW2 expressly stated that .............................., one_:.......... ·+·· .......... of the"......................,... .•. , .••.......... _ _, .. I· . ... , -. - I ._ ---.. ----- -----------·. ---- . . . . . . . · .. · - - · · • · · · · ----······-··· I ... . bandits had painted his face with "black colours/~ _ He 7ever said that ' -I the appellant was not that person. At one stage while under cross- . i. - I . examination from the appellant, PW2 ~aid: I I I "After you were arrested I was called at Buguru1i Police ' 1 Station where I identified you .... ,✓ ;' / I I ! - I Ii I I Within the same breath he belied himself saying :- i ' i . '1 did not identify you at the police station and no tsi~) any parade of identification was condu~ted against you/~ / .,~ I . I I I I ' I I ' j . It is cle_ar from the evidence on record that the ~hree identifying I ' i . witnesses (PWl~ PW2 ahd PW4) were unequivocal i_rti theit ·evidence · . I ' ' I ' ,· . I that from the day of :the· robbery,:,· when they allegedly saw the· -~ .. - - . - - -. . . . -' - -· .··-~ . - l -. - ·. . , - I · appellant among the robbers they_ next saw him in/the dock when ~ ' . . __ .th_ey _were -testifying. This_ \N~? --~fte~.. ? lapse of/ seven. to_. eig_ht . . ~- . ·-, - . . - ...... I : . I. - months. - It. is worth n_oting here' ·that Raja bu .Hlaji (PW3) ·_ who j . ) , -I I - - - - ----~ . ..- - --- .----;--~~ -~-:~----- ___, _; •-- ... ~~ I ~~~~~ - -- . I - i - - I ..... :-..... ·-· •· _:_j ____ a,..', .... I - - I -- - - . - -· I - - ----_~::a~----~-: ___ ~-witri_es-secl~·the- _robbery----was---EaA4£!--e,oou§ n-to--~-e~-t-he1tria-l- -Court . .that. .... -----~----··-- ·----···- i I --he never identified any one of the-bandits. • I I I . .. -- ··----·- -- ..... - ···--·- ·~----------------·-- -- . -· - ,. ··----·- ---- 1· ..... - - - - - - - ------------. -- 1 t . . . ·· j· -·· -·- - .... - - --- .. - ·-·· - --· ...... ·••- ·• ., . . .... ----·~------•--•-----··-···· ..··- . .. . . ·-·· . t ... ---·.- ---------·-------- . The law on the quality of visual identification -evidence is now. · well settled. Whenever a case against an·accused d~pends wholly or I - . I substantially on the correctness of ohe or more identifications I . of the . J accused which he alleges to be mistaken, the Court should warn itself· ! . I of the special need for caution before basing a conviction on it. This i I necessity for caution becomes more compelling wh~n the offence is I . I committed under . terrifying circumstances and -byI a stranger or i _strangers. Also to be considered is the length of the'. interval between I . I the original observation and subsequent identification to the police or : I j in court. The longerthe period, the greater the need for caution-and I - .. . . . - I the witness should state . the special reason(s) for !iremembering the . , ...... accused. Ali this is necessary because - a mistaken i,itriess I could . be a convincing· one and that a number of such·· witnJsses···coald--a11 I be mistaken. The - quality of such evidence - is -e·n:hanced _when an i - . . . - I -identification ·parade is ,·held · ·immediately after Fhe -arrest- of the- -- -_· I -- I I • >'··.--------, ~ . . .. . i ! . .· ....... ·... __ . __ _ • ·-·· • - - - - - - - ........ -··••« - ····- ., .• ···-·· -·· ·•- .... :.······. -- •• ~- - ·- . • . • ____ _._.~--. ..t-+-. .- . j .I . I I ... · . .. . ... . .. . . . . . . : . !. . . . - .·. . . . . ··--·- <'· ---·····:-···suspect~' ·in order-to···en-a~e---the--w1~ness-~--w-r-10--dai m; to- -be .abl@..t.O.-----:·-- ----···- ,__ ....... . . . .. . . . . . . . .. I I . identify the suspect to do so as soon as possible. / I I .... --- ........ t· .. ... -.. ·-.... ·•·• ........ . . . . ····--···-------·---·----------·-·... . .., . . . . . - .. ···--·/'---:.. .. :... ..... - ........... : ~ In the instant case - no su·ch .. . identificationI . .parade was ! conducted. No reasons were given for such an omission even though • 'I • ! I I the appellant remained in police custody for fifteen/ days before he ·, I ! was taken to court. · It is also important to note here that the ' . I : i appellant was arrested not on the basis of his des¢ription given by _ : the three identifying prosecution ·yvitnesses but 1/>ecause he was I I 1 mention~d by another suspect These facts fundarn entally affect the . ! I quality of the visual identification evidence relied pn by the courts I , . I . below to convict the appellant. They also lead tp an unavoidable i I . · inference to the effect that th~se witnesses did not give any 1 ! . . . .- .. - . •. l description of the appellant to the police. What w e have 6n record, · 1 . . . . ··- .... . . .. /. . .. ·····• ... . . . . . . I . therefore, is the dock _identification evidence of PV;V1,PW2 and PW4; _ . I .incidentally, pw4·· had-·categorically-told"' the--lrial bi strict Cou·rt -that r : ' I . . . . ;, . ' . !· . he had seen· . . the. . accused . Maige;. who . was acqJitted I . : by the . High -. Court, togethe( With-· the· appellant . at the scene-. .I the- robbery;·. ~No-·:·-- -. ------ - . o~- I . _reason \Nas. given - - for- being -- disbelieved - on -this. -I r i I . . ' . .. . -! ..:. :. _.. __ :--·-'---:--:-: .. . .:. : -·---------··---- __ ......... ·- ·. -.· ....·-·-.•· . . . . : ·, f:. .· ______,__ ... --_.:··-"----'-------1--~---=:::.:.::...:~:..::=.'. -~=-~- :·-·_1-_ ~_-.__·.:.:..:~.-~---.· ~- .· . .. ----:--·---- ~25~~~~_?_,i~~¥iigf-c~~,:::~~~~i~i~;;;~fi.~S:~~I,£/~ ··•-,• =· -·- ... -· - ~· .. , . ·: ..... ·•.:.:~:.~_:;:.:~_:-~:-.- . • . ~ . . • " '. ·. . -- - ··r -- .·-· ··~ . . • • . • .... ~-~-~,-- ·--•-•·--=-···-·-···"'-·--··-·-··--·-·~-- • • ----.. ,, ..,---·-_--. :· - --- . -.: ·r~'.:~-:--:'•:_:_·:·- ,_. . ,::,,.... ,/:. - I 9 ~; • • : - . ·-··-- ----'!'--·--.-:~ -:· ······--·-- .. •-- ... , I . • ·..•. ---/-_. •. •· .. •..• : •.•• . c ...•.....•. •·.·••· ··-·.· ·'··--····· ... ·-···.-··' :· ••.• - ,- . . . I- . ,, II I , l . -·-·· ··---.----------- ------·- ·-. . .... ···--·- ·-·- -----·--· - -· . . . .......... ~- .. --·· ··--------------- ·-----·- ... - .. ----- ---·-· -- ..:. I . .. . . . .. . i . Coming to dock identification evidence, the law i$ equally clear .. . I -·--·- ---·----·-- ..... --·· - - - - - - · ·--··· ·- ... - . . ... ---•-·- -··'·-. . .. - -·-- I Such evidence is by and large worthless. °This Court, jn MOSA f:lIAS · ··· · -- ·------·----- - ••-• ....... ····•··-····. ---- -- - .... ---- ··--·· --- ····-··-· ...... ····ii . -·-·--· ..... - -·· :• --·-·+··--···•"'" ···-··· .. . . .. AN6··--i\No··-crr"HERS v. REPUBLIC CR.·. APPE.l\["'~NJ17z- :OF · 1993- · . ' I (unreported), made it absolutely ,clear that suc,h · evidence is I i I I valueless. It said: iI . . I . 11 ••• It is a well established rule tflat dock identification of an ' • I accused person by a person who Js a stranger to th~ accused . I. has value only where there has been an identificatifn parade at which the witness success~u/ly . identified th~I accused . before . the witness was called to give , evidence at th~I trial'~ I I I I I This was recently strongly reiterated by this Cl:ourt I in the case I ' I of JULIUS JUSTIN & OTHERS v REPUBLIC, CR. APPEAL I No. 155 OF I I 2005 (unreported). I - . . I I • • • . There is no gainsaying that the conviction of rthe appellant was .-. -. . .. .. : .. ·-- . . Ii . - . ·-- .. founded on this .valueless dock identification . evidence I of Pw1, . PW2 I .;- I and PW4. That being the . case the conviction is legally I I . ,,_ ·. . I , . unsustainable. For this reason we have found ounselves constrained i i . · ·· · :· · ·• · · ·. · ·• s·· • ·• · · · · ·· •• • • ,.. • •·- • . . ,, · f .· · to allow this appeal in its entirety ~s urged by tne 1appellant·and •Miss .- ·_. i. i I I-· Msabila. I I · · .· ····•-· ·-:~::_-.·.:_-___--~-:-..::'.:::::.:........:-·-'----·-_,--'--"_-'--'-·--'--·-·- ~ - ~ - - ' . c c L-- -_ • ..:.=-cc'! __.____ --~ ... .!L .. • . . . I c. .-- ;. ~::T:~'.:':~-~~;:;:2~:Silt~~~~;;~:_:'-:~~:-~.;:~;_4~~~1{:i:.:.~:~ .. ,.: ... -;.~~;:::..;--;_-:_ .. . .:,~f.-r~+,-·:_ . .. . ....• :_.._-_ -·,· --·, ,·, ........ ,:~. .· ,··>-.- . . . _··:-~:;:;'· :··:f:-·--,--: ... ,.,: .. ~-, --~ ... .,... - - .. . ,. I I ,. . ~ ••-•, .. . . . . ,..J-• -••••r . .. ······. ·. ·.· ..·.. ! ...·...·...... ··....:··- ·- . .. . -l . ..•. : ·----· .. _••. ·- .•••..·. ·---:"•'"--..;.·~ I .. :·' .' I I I . . I. . . . -·-•-•.- -· . ......... -· -Hav~Rg.-aUowed the ..appeaLthe ., .convictioo. ...of_tbe/~.appelLant .is_______ -~----: .. :..... . 0 ,~-... :. . I . hereby quashed and set aside. The sentence of )thirty years , . I . ------ . impris~~-m~-~t--as :weli ··as . ih·e··:comp~nsation ~o-rder-ar~-- ~Isa· quashea-· --··:- ... ·- ------- ...••.... -··· • - ....• ·-··· ... -·· .... . ....... . ..... . .·. ··-· ....... ~- .... :. .... , ·- .. ·- - . ,,.. . ···.·.. 1I . . .. . . .. .. . ,......... ,.,.. . - .···.-·-·~---a~nd-sef ·aside. °the appelfant ·1s to be--rele~isc_ecf f<5rthwith from ·prison·· . . • . ' . I • • II . ' . I unless he is otherwise lawfully held. . : . . II th .DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 18 day of September; 2007 .· . . . I . . .I I I S. N. KAJI I I JUSTICE OF APPEAL I I. E. M~ K. RUTAKANGWA JUSTICE OF APPEAL E. A. KIUEO JUSTICE OF APPEAL l certify that this is a hu_e copy of the original. -----= .11,:. ~-- :_ r:L --~- \ ' . . I. P--:_~I USI . DEPUTY REGISTRA-R- --- -- . . . I I . I I .. . I 'I . I. I . I . . II I . . I . ·• ' .• I ,