N
The appellant was found in possession of the stolen property soon after the burglary, offered no credible explanation, and his defense was rejected as preposterous. The conviction and sentence were inevitable given the facts and prior record.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- N
- Parties
- Appellant: Hamisi Kfaliki; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1973
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Stealing, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence
- 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
Hamisi Kfaliki
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for burglary and stealing was proper
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was justified
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant was found in possession of the stolen property soon after the burglary, offered no credible explanation, and his defense was rejected as preposterous. The conviction and sentence were inevitable given the facts and prior record.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- conviction and sentence upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
J2hf. IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No; 128 OF 1 977 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE No. 373 OF 1976 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF SINGIDA AT SINGIDA BEFORE: C.U.S. MWAILUNGA . . .. . RESIDENT MAGISTRATE HAMISI KFLA.LIKI . . . . ........APPELLANT versus THE REPUBLIC . . . . .... .. . . RESPONDENT CHARGE: 1st Ct: Burglary c/s 294(1) of the Penal Code 2nd Ct: Stealing c/s 265 of the Penal Code J U D G N E NT JONATHAN, J. There is little merit in this appeal. The appellant was convicted of burglary and stealing and sentenced to a substantive term of 5 years' imprisonment. There is no dispute that the complainant on the relevant night locked the house to go to the local shopping centre and that when he returned about one hour later he found the door open and the house lit and having been drained of considerable property including a radio set, clothes and bedding. He seems to have iediately reported to the police whereupon he accompanied by Pw.2, Pw.3 a police constable and Pw.4 using torches that same night followed the foot prirts of the burglar. They led them to a deserted house% upon breaking which they found the appellant sleeping using the stolen beddings of the complainant. All the other things were beside him. He offered no explanation and was arrested. His defence was that the complainant had found him flirting or in adulterous contact with his wife. He took offence, so he planted those things on him to fake up a burglary. Clearly, this was a preposterous story and there can be no surprise that the learned resident magistrate rejected rejected it outright. On the facts the conviction in my view was inevitable and the appeal against conviction cannot possibly avaiJ Equally; that against the sentence. For, in 1973 the appellant had been convicted of cattle theft. Accordingly; the appeal is dismissed in its entirety.. P.. N. JONiTHAN JEJDGE.