19901010 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The circumstantial evidence did not irresistibly point to the respondent's guilt, as the room was accessible to others and the padlock could have been tampered with. The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19901010 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Hasanias Njata Chacha
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 10 October 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Theft by Public Servant, Circumstantial Evidence, Burden of Proof
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Director of Public Prosecutions
Appellant
Hasanias Njata Chacha
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was guilty of theft by public servant based on circumstantial evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The circumstantial evidence did not irresistibly point to the respondent's guilt, as the room was accessible to others and the padlock could have been tampered with. The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IH '].lr:ill; III<I.IT COURT OP 1I'JJ1rz;1nA AT DAR ES S1~Llu:U'[, 11.PPELLATl~ J"UD.IS".0ICTION rum! CODTIT CRIMIN!iL Lf'?:i.,;,i.L HO. 2G OF 1900 OTUGET!u, CRIMIN!~L c~·,_sE HOo 77 0]7 1907 0::::1 TI:'.J :tiISTRICT COu11::1 Cf:1 Y:IO:JOGORO DISTRICT fl.'.} HOROGORO versus lIAS.:Lil!i.3 NJJf.Tli. Clli~CIIA ~ ••• • •• • ~ • • • • • • RESPOFDDH'l1 ( ORG. FROS:i;C;u~OR) JUD G 1-1 EH T. Rcspondc;.1-'c w.lcl hls co-accuscc.l wcr-o n.cqui ttod of tho of:Zcncc of Sten.ling by P1..t'.bl;ic Servant. c'ontro'.'..I'y to s0ctions 270 nml 265 of tho Penal (fodc,. In this n.ppc.11 -clic Director of Public ProsGcu"iiio11s is appealing ~ainst tho G,()quit·~al of tho rcopomlonJc. It is in t.1.:o record thn.t bo·~.h rcsponclont ru1d his co-accused were Oi.1ployccl by Mti btrri. St\1n.I' Estc.to <'..S storc:.1on. Responclcn-i; wr,s ·ilia overall incllarc;o of the s~~o:l'c. 11.tionc; othoI" ·ii.J.inc;n, th0rc we.a c1 cupbo::-..rcl in tho said store. in uhicl1 n.t the ,.mtori2.l ti::10, there wore kop·i; throe bottles of ncrcu.ry. The l:cys to tho store usoc:.. ·to rotate ootw-0011 tho co-a.caused n.nd another sforeLu:u.1. Tho cupboo.rcl in ull.icb. the bottles o-: ,.10J:'Clll'Y wore lcopt used to bo loc:;:ocl with n, pocllocl;: 16oso keys 11'crc rJ.;r~ys bcinc.; kept by the rcsponclcni. ;D.1e11 lie opened tho cup1)oa.rd on 31/1/87 rcopon~':.cnt found Ot'!.t that one of t:10 1.Jo·iitlos of .1cxcL1.ry was Dissines. Ilowovcr, -~hero was no indication of tho brocidnc of tho store or Jcho cupbo2..Xcl,. But ·l;.hcrc is evidence tho.,t one clcy previous to t~1is cliscovory 9 tho keys -lio tho store wore rcportcc.l r.rl.nsinc; n.nd this neccssi tatod the chanGi'l'.lG of locks of' all tho cloors. T'.10 Dn.·~·t;cr was :roportecl ·co· 1:iolicc which cleciclcd to file this base, The eVicle11ce QG.Jinst tho rcspontcnt is osscntio.,lly ci1•cu;·.1stai.1tial11 · The keys of the c1..:pboarcl W[tS alwcys boinc; kept by tho .rcsponclont,. As .not~cl , cn.rlior there iG no succ;ostr-..tion tlrn:l; the cupboard was broken into. Rclyinc on these s0-:.s of fc..c·t; tho Republic is n.rcuil'lG that rosponclont nust be responsible fo:r 'llic theft of the sc.ricl bottle of ,.10rcUI-y. Act:ut·iicc.Uy it f.s not true thti.,t ci:rcu:;.1sJcn.ncial cvidm1cc is by no.tu.re inferior to (:.:i.rect cvic!cnco,. 0 ' .. On the· contro.:r;/ ·;;ho:rc is a coiJpclli:ac n#cm.1cnt c,dvancccl by so::10 renown ju:rists tho.;i; a·;; "iiir.1cs circL1'.1s·i;aJ1tial evidence is the best oviclcnco. But in cri □incl cc..scs tl1c voluo of circu;-.1stru1tial evidence is sL1bjcct to one ir.1port~1-~ q_'Uc.,lificc:.tion. In orclor to support a convicJi;ion such oircur.1stanticl cvic:.once ;:iust 1:,c incc,pablo of 8XJ3' oJc;hcr rco..sonablc bypcthcs.is m:copt tho cuiH of ·the accusccl pc:.:-son"i li.pplyinc this qucli:ficdi·on in this co.so, the question here is whot!:-.cr -;;.:10 fc1..0t that rospom:.011";; :.1D.(.l tho exclusive pose.,ssion of -1;:10 2::cy of the pod.lock of t21c cupboc.rcl nnC.. ·,;.1.1n.t -i:.hcl'c is no indication th.....,-;; .:hl1e scicl cupboo.rd ho.cl l)oon physically ·t;c,.}pc:rcC. with nccossm;i.ly.-; load to: no other roc,sonc.blc o:;;:1)lruiticion o:;rnopt that the stic.l 1)oJi;tlo of L10rcu:ry. wns stofon by -~ho rosponc.:ont.o ~Titl, respect, ·I f'J,1 disinclinccl to n.nswor this I question posi ·avcly. T:io roo1:1 in 1rb.ich. tho cupboo.rd contc..ini11(; the bottle of ncrcu:ry was. kept w2.s oocossiblc to o·i;hcr uo:J:'kors ·durinG the a.bsoncc of ,the rcispond.ent. Tho scicl cupbonxd wo.s loclrncl by n.n ordinn.ry Pt'..Cllocl'"..., T'.uc possibil~ I • • of such padlock boil'JC tqnporoc.l wifh by WuJr of other thc..n l)roc.J;::i.11[; is nore thc.n speculative.,.· I woulc.l 116.ve boon loath fo en,i;ortn.in this possi'uility hn.d. tho smd bottles of ;·.1orcury been leapt in sucJ1 secure contai11c1·s tis fl.. snf o. . 'Ille inference of rospomloi1t's cuilt is oven L10ro doubtful by t110 1.mc:;;:plainocl tor.1poroxy disappon.rtncc of tho ko31 s of J;;ho xoon :i,n w).1ich ·;;110 cupbon.rd was kept. . Tl1is h~ppo;.1ocl o..bout ono clcy i)Xior to t~10 cllojccl ·;;ho:rt. 'lliero is no evidence ii.1plicc.:Gil'l(; tho rcsponc1..on•;; with tho saicl tc;:iporr..ry cliso.ppcaranco of those keys. As n, iTholo the circuz.1s·;;c.noio.l oviclcnco in this cc.,so docs not ' ' load to n.n irrosistc..blc inference t:.12.·c rosponlont is cu:i.1·0;;- of tho allececl 0 theft.· I rospoc·;;:?ul].y uf;"l.'Oo wi tll -;;110 lon.rnecl tricil nn..:;istro/.;o t:mt prosecution has failed to es·~b,blis.h tho Gui•l t of Ji;hc rosponclcnt. .ll.ccorcli11cly tllis appeal is disoissoc.l. Jt.,· \..___ 4 ~ t .\u.:{. ~ Ci"iac. ·, ii'smrr) JUDGE.