NA TZHC Dar es Salaam3
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pipes found were the stolen property and that the appellant was aware of or in possession of them. Mere suspicion was insufficient for conviction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- NA TZHC Dar es Salaam3
- Parties
- Appellant: Felix John Lekule; Respondent: The United Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment With Reasons Delivered
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside
- Legal Topics
- Receiving Stolen Property, Standard of Proof, Evidence
- 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
Felix John Lekule
Appellant
The United Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment With Reasons Delivered
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant received stolen property
- 2 Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the pipes found were the stolen property and that the appellant was aware of or in possession of them. Mere suspicion was insufficient for conviction.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside
Orders
- Conviction quashed
- Sentence set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
tr(c~ IN TIIE TIIGII COURT OF T.Ai:4°6A~ITA AT DAR ES 3.A.1lv1H EPPELiATE JURISDICTION T.1:IG:J: C01.JRI1 CRL,UiJ.AL .APPEAL NO.. 49 OF 1995 Oricimi:l Cr.iminnl Cnr.::o Noo 963 of 1994 of tho District Court .of Ilala Diotrict at Kioutu FELIX JOillif LEICTILE 00 oo 00 00 APPELLJ~:JT Vcrslll:l TITE U::TITED Rfil>TJBLIC oo ·o o o o RZSP01fDJlli~ REA30i'I~3 FOR Jt.J1)GLJHENT BEFORE. E. A. ramo, J: Ch 3/7 /95 I a.llowod the n;ppoal by Fbliir. John Iokulc, quashoc'l hia conviction nnd sot acido the sentence thnt ua."3 imposed upon him., I reserved my reasons for so doine which I nm now c;oizme to giveo The appellant Fbli.x John Lckulc wo.o convicted of rcccivins ctolen proport---.r c/s 311 (ib) of the penal codo by the Di:-:.:triot Court of Ilalo..o no -::ras sontcnc'-ed to one yoa..r imprisonmonto IIc , J.f3 nc.:;rfo:vod by tho doci:Jion of tho ~ictrict ·Cou..rt nnd appealled on grov.nd DJ11on.;- others that there na.s -no eviclcnce estnb~ishd.ng that he hnrl. received stolon I1ropcrtyo Ntt·o l1Tn.nli who roproscnted the Republic at the hco..rinG of tho a.ppcal did not support the convict:Lon., How, there wa.s <Widcnce tandc:rcd by employees of tho Ministr]' of Uorl.cs and Co·,,1municc.itions to the effect that somo oquipmont which hod b_con in their possession was :::toleno Tlloy went to Gcrczani area where they believed that tho equipment mi6ht b.av-o been taken to and they ended-at a makelift s.b.ciip allegedly bel- onging to the a.ppello.nto Hero they fou.VJ.d some pipes which were bcl~.cvod to have been pa.rt of the stolon oquipmcnto The appellant wao not however found nt the sccneo Tr1b.nt was not proved is whether the pipes found in tho makeshift shop were the same ones as these stolen from the complninantso S3condays the appclJ.o.nt wan not n.t tho scene when the pi:pcs where found and there was no evidence showing that ho wo..s auaro of them or had taken them in his possossiono Nro i:foali rightly pointed out thnt the appellant WM arrested on rricro suspicion., o a 2/ oo 2 It is troll known thn.t mere suspicion, 110 matter how strong co,1:mot sustain a. ·convictiono 'Ille Prosecution h::io to prove its case n,.::fa.inst an accused beyond doubto In tho c2so at hnnd. tho prosecution fell short of that proof nnd. it is for tho nbovo 1-cw·Jons · that I allowed tho apj)Cal by Fblix John Lckuleo E. A. KTu"TIO JUDGE This is to certify that ti1is is v. true copy of the originalo