edward petro vs republic 2017 tzhc 2068 31 july 2017

“ORIGINAL”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

DODOMA DISTRICT REGISTRY

AT DODOMA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION DC CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2016 (Originating from the District Court of MPWAPWA Criminal Case No. 101 of 2015)

EDWARD PETRO APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE REPUBLIC RESPONDENT

JU D G EM EN T 31st JULY 2017. Mansoor, J: This appeal arise out of the judgment dated 30th March , 2016, passed by the District Court of Mpwapwa in Criminal Case No. 101 of 2015, by which, the Appellant was convicted of the charge of giving false information to a person employed in public service c/s 122 of the Penal code, Cap 16 R:E 2002. The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to a conditional discharge of six months, and the cows to be returned to the victim. “ORIGINAL” The particulars of the offence are that on 16th April 2015 at 15.30 hrs. at Mpwapwa Police Station, the Appellant knowingly gave false information to D 9273 CPL Haji, a police officer that, his five cows were stolen by one Amos Mahope causing the said Mahope to be apprehended by the police. The Appellant was represented by Advocate Mcharo while the State was represented by Mr. Sarara, the State Attorney. Counsel Mcharo argued that there was no false information given to CPL Haji as it is true that the Appellants cows were stolen in 2012 and he reported to the village Leaders of Kisokwe Village, and in 2015 he found the cows with Amos Mahope. The Cows were given back to the Appellant. State Attorney Sarara stated that the Appellant did not report to police the theft of his cows in 2012. The Appellant was lying before the police officer, as he gave false information to the police officer with the intent of

obtaining the cows belonging to some other people. I went through the records and have seen that the offence charged was that, the Appellant did furnish information on his stolen cows to the public servant was not proved. The prosecution failed to prove that such information furnished by the Appellant to the police officer was not true, or that the Appellant knew or he has reason to believe to be false. It has been proved by the Appellant that he reported the theft since 2 “ORIGINAL” 2012 to the village leaders. He reported early and punctually, the information of the above fact to the village leaders but not to the officer of the nearest police station. However there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution showing that the Appellant wilfully misinformed the police officer that his cows were recovered from one Amos. In the circumstances, the benefit of doubt is given to the appellant/accused person and he is therefore acquitted of the charges. The appeal is allowed, and conviction and sentence is quashed and set aside. The order to return the five cows to the Appellant is however confirmed, since it has not been established by the Appellant as to how the cows found with Amos Mahope belong to him. It is ordered accordingly L. MANSOOR

JUDGE / 31st JULY 2017 \; Judgement delivered in Court today in the presence of the Ms. Luwongo, State Attorney for the Respondent Republic and in the 3 “ORIGINAL” absence of the Appellant. Mr C. A. Chali the Court Clerk. ■ x A LLiO— l . MANSOOR | JUDGE >1ST JULY 2017 4