20080829 TZHC Arusha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2007 SALEHE OMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPELLANT - Versus - THE REPUBLIC ... .. ... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of the District Court of Babati) (U.S. SWALLO - RM)) Dated the 5 th day of June, 2007 In Criminal Case No. 448 of 2006 6th & 26 th Augusl, 200U JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Before; ll. 1\1. l\'lmilla, .J .: The appclla11t in 1.ltis cas1\ 011c ~alch~ s/o O111ary was charged wi1.l1 and co11vic1.cd of' robbery wil.li viol1·11cc. lie was sc11l.c11ccd l.o serve a l:crrn of' which is against co11vict.io11 and sc11l.cncc. 011 19.11.2006 around 19.:Wlirs. which was already dark i11 t.lic night, PWJ No.D.Bl 1;3 Dct.ccl.ivc Co11sl.ablc Jolt11 was allegedly attacked by five LarnJit.s at Ngarc11aro area in Bal,ati Township 011 !tis \.Vay lio111e fron1 Al<lcrgal.c. 11. was alleged 1.liat !tis assaila11l.s liil. lii111 wit:li a bush knife an<l managed t:o get. control ol' lii111, ::;earcl1cd l1i111 a11d rohbc<l from !tis person a mobile phone 111:tl<:1\ Nokia wil.li serial No.1110 valued al. shs. The appclla11t.'s 1111:111ora11d11111 of' appeal !ins raised t.lircc gro11111h, wliiclt com111u11ly .dlcgc t.wo 1.lii11gs; f'irslly lliaL I.lie pros1:c11Lio11 side did 1101 prove the case against l1i111 h1~yo11d rcasonahl1~ do11li1., and secondly, t.ltat Lhc trial court did 1101. gav1\ d1'.scrvi11g weight to tlic dcf'c11cc lie gave. 'l'he appellant is appearing in person while the Hcpublic is hcing rcprcfic11ted by ]\.fr. 'J'csha, learned state allorncy wlio declined Lo support co11victio11 ..• q_od sc11tc11cc 011 acco1111I. Llial. lie shares ap1wlla11t's view tlwt the case was 1101. proven against liin1 l11~yond reasonable do11hl. court, the appclla111's 111c111ora1Hl11111 of app.,al and I lie oral s11ll111issions ol' both the appclla11t and the learned state attorney J\lr. Tesha, this court is of the same view tliaL t.hc co11viction in this n)gard was 1101 we.11 grounded for reasons a bou I. to be assig111'.1l. \Vhilc I note that. there wcr1· co11Lrad.ictio11s in 1-csp1'.cl ol' Ilic l.cstimonics of P\Vl and PW2 who wen~ I he only wi L11css1~s called lo testify for t.lic prosecut.io11 i11 I.his case, I a111 quick to say 1.li:11 Llicy were 111i11or, thus 1101: 11w t1:rial. r note 011c glaring I lii11g however, tlrnL t.lic learned trial 111agist.rnl.c did 1101. give due weight Lo t.lH~ cvid1~11cc ol' the appcllanl. As already pointed 0111, Ilic appclla11L said 111 i'1is •~vidcncc LliaL the com-plai11a11t. was i11f'uria1cd l'ollowiiw ,.t, liis- f'ail11rc Lo acco11111lisli the assignment lie was given hy liiru for wliicli lie rcpri111a11dcd him by slappi11g lti111 i11 the face, d1:111clllding rcl11rn ol' slis. I, 000/= he l1ad g1vc11 hirn as co11sidcratio11 for the assignment, to call for hirn t.lic worn all wl1om 3 Dale: 26 11, August, '.WOii Coram: B. IVl. K. M n1illa, .l. Fur Lhe Appcllanl: l'resc11 L For Lite Hcspornlcnl: Mr. '1'1'.sli,1, SI.tic'. ;\1tor111'.y. B/c: S. l\J. tourl: J11dgn1c111 dcliv1'.n~d 1liis 2(i' 1' day or A11g11sl, 200B i11 1.lic presence or person. AT AHUSIIA (Sg1l) 1'1111illa, B.M. Jml t:,11 e • 26.B.200B Hight ol' l'urthcr appeal explained. (Sgd) Mmill a, B.l\1. Jwlge 26.8.200B l certify t.hat. this is a t.rnc copy of' the original. F.S. K. IJISTH~ AH.USHA BMM/jn. 5