20130614 TZHC Dodoma1

1 4' IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA (APPELLATE JURISDICFION) (DC) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4 of 2012 Original criminal case no. 261 of 2010 of The district court of Dodoma district at Dodoma HASSANI SAID ................................. APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ................................ RESPONDENT 12/6/2013 & 14/6/2013 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT HON. F.S.K. MUTUNGI,J. The appellant Hassan Said was charged with Armed Robbery c/s 287A as amended by Act NC). 4/2004 of the Penal Code, he was found guilty and convicted to serve 30 years imprisonment by the ...DJfric.tCourtof.Dodo- The facts of the case were these: 0726/7/201O dfabóuf 02.40 hs of Krgala Village, withih Dodbmd --M 70,OOO7 C. bag containing clothes and other documents the property of Mlewa Salua and immediately before such stealing the accused had hit the complainant with a hammer (nyundo) and likewise had a matchet. Submitting in court primarily the appellants main observation taking from his deposition, averred that, the complainant couldn't have possibly identified him because he solely relied on torch light which couldn't afford him a good identification and that the whole story is a fabrication because even the witnesses all come from the same family. Ms. Seif the learned State Attorney, who represented the Republic, opposed the appeal, stating that the Republic supports the conviction because the identification of the accused was properly done by the complainant and similarly people who assembled at the scene managed to trace the accused and did infact apprehended him basing on the complainant having mention him and described the shirt he was wearing and indeed upon a pursuit for the accused they managed to apprehend him a short while later still wearing the same white shirt. 3 I have thoroughly read the record and also the subsequent grounds filed by the appellant in support of the appeal, together with the respective submissions made before me. The issue that I find wanting is whether the complainant was placed in such convenient environment to properly make an unmistakable identification of the accused. Now having thoroughly scrutinized the evidence on record as was adduced at the trial court, I have no doubt and as correctly said by the learned State Attorney, the prosecution indeed had a good case against the accused, on the question of identification. In that, the accused was a person well known to the complainant well even before the occurrence of the Robbery incident. The complainant immediately at the scene of crime told the people who assembled at the scene not only did he mention the accused , but also how the accused was dressed , and indeed upon tracing him down they arraigned him still wearing the cloth as described by the complainant. There was still yet a lot more evidence on which to convict, let qJn..eincuu.gtit..-wi.t.4he 1ndividuaIs whcpursued him; as very :--=-.-• ..... • • • . . ri items mentioned by the complainant i.e the hammer and likewise the bag containing the complainants item. The appellant despite denying involvement, in that he emphatically stated that he could not have been identified solely by the aide of torch light, but I don't buy his preposition because in the circumstances as was described by the complainant, that due to torch light that was held by the other accused and taking from the proximity, inferring to when the accused was holding the complainant and taking into account these two knew each other very well even before the incident. 1 am of a settled mind that the conditions set in the land mark case of Waziri Amani Vs. Republic (1980) TLR 250 were undoubtedly met and it is therefore safe to conclude that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. For the above reasons the appeal fails and it is dismissed in its entirety. F.SJAI 14/6/201.3. 5 13 F. 14/6/2013 14/6/2013 Date: 14/06/2013 Coram: Hon. F.S.K. Mutungi, J. AppeUant: Present in person Respondent: Ms. Magessa State Attorney R.M.A. Magaka Mr. Court: Judgment read this 14/6/2013 in Court in the presence of the appellant and also in the presence of Ms. Magessa State Attorney representing the Republic. JUDGE