salehe omary vs republic 2008 tzhc 293 26 august 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO, 1 9 0 OF 2 0 0 7 SALEHE OM ARY .................................. APPELLANT - Versus - THE REPUBLIC ... ... .,. ...... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the d ecision o f the D istrict C ourt o f B abati) (U. S. SWALLO - RM)) D ated the 5 th day o f Jun e, 2 0 0 7 In C rim in al Case N o. 4 4 8 o f 2 0 0 6 6th & 201'1August- 20011 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Before; B. M. JMmilla, J.: T h e appellant in I his ca se o n e S a l e h c s/o O m a r v was charged w ilh and e o n v i c l e d ol r o h h e r y w i l h \ l o lc n c e . l i e w a s s e n l c n c e d l o s e r v e a l.enn ol I i 1l.een ( I r>) y e a r s 1 i m p r i s o n m e n t . lie (ell aggrieved, h e n c e I his a p p e a l w h i c h is a g a i n s t c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e . On 19.11.2006 around I9..‘>0hrs. which was already dark in I he nighl, V W I INo.I).HI I.) I )el eel i ve ( '.oust a hie, J ohn was allegedly attacked hy five handils at INgarenaro area in IJahal.i Township on his way home from Aldergale. 11 was alleged that his assailants hil him wilh a hush knife and managed lo gel control ol him, .->earelied him and rohhed Irom his person a mohih' phone malu' [Nokia wilh serial iNo.ll 10 valued al shs. T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s m e m o r a n d u m o f a p p e a l h as r ai sed l l i r e e g r o u n d s w h i c h com m only allege I \v<> I h i n g s ; firstly lhal I lie p r o s e c u t i o n si<le di<l nol p r o v e t h e case a g a i n s t h i m h e v o n d r c a s u n a h i e d o u b t , an<l s e c o n d l y , l h a l i h e I r ial eour't d id nol g a v e d e s e r v i n g w e i g h t l o I he d e f e n c e he g a v e . "The a p p e l l a n t is a p p e a r i n g in p e rs o n w h i l e t h e R e p u b l i c is b e i n g re. j) resen ted b y M r . T o s h a , l e a r n e d slate, a t t o r n e y w h o d e c l i n e d to s u p p o r t c o n v i c t i o n , a n d sen I e n c e on a c c o u n t t h a t he s h a r e s a p p e l l a n t \s v i e w t h a t t h e , c a s e w a s not p r o v e n against him h e v o n d reasonable do u bt. H a v i n g c a r e l u M v g o n e t h r o u g h tin* p r o c e e d i n g s a m i j u d g m e n t ol the. t r i a l con rt, t he a p pel la n I s m e m o r a ml u m o f a p p e a I a n d I he o ra I sii bin issio ns ol b o t h t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d tin* l e a r n e d s t a l e a t t o r n e v M r . T o s h a , t h i s c o u r t is of t h e s a m e v i e w t h a t I ho c on v i c l inn in t h is r e g a r d w a s nol w e l l g r o u n d e d (or r e a s o n s a b o u t l o be a s s i g n e d . W h ile I nole lh al I h e r e w e i r c o n t r a d i c t i o n s in respect o f t h e t e s t i m o n i e s ol I ’ W I a n d 1*W 2 w h o w o r e t he o n l yJ w i t n e s s e s c a l l e d lo te s tily l o r tin*. p r o s e c u t i o n in t h i s c ase . I a m <piiek lo s a y l h a l t h e y w e r e m i n o r , t h u s not m aterial. I nole one glaring thing however, that the, learned trial m a g i s t r a t e d id nol g i v e d u e weight, to t he e v i d e n c e o f I he a p p e l l a n t . As already pointed out, the appellant sai d in his evidence lhal I he com plainant was infuriated following his failure to accom plish the assignm ent I n’; w a s given by him for which he reprim anded him by s l a p p i n g h i m in I he, f a c e, d e m a n d i n g rot u r n o f shs. I , ()()()/= h e h a d g i v e n h i m as c o n s i d e r a t i o n l o r t h e a s s i g n m e n t l o c al l l o r h i m t h e w o m a n w h o m D ale: 2 0,h A u g u s l , 200J5 Coram: l>. M . K . M m i l l a , J . F o r the A p p e l l a n I : I ’ r e se 1 1 1. F o r t he R e s p o n d e n t : INI i . T e s h a . S i a I c A I I orm*\ . W v : S. I\l. Courl: J u d g m e n t d e l i v e r e d I his 2()1*’ d a y <>l A u g u s t . 200<» in I In*. p r e s e n c e ol M r . T e s h a . l e a r n e d s l a t e a t t o r n e y l o r the I»1m * a n d I In* a p p e l l a n t in AT A IU JS IIA i Mmilla, H.iXl. Judge M m i l l a , I5.IM. Judge 2(>.K.20(W I eert.ify I hat t h i s is a t n i c c o p y o f I he o r i g i n a l . F. S. K, [m m u \— - d i s t i c h ?! EGISTItAK A R U SIIA