na TZHC Dodoma 7

.'- -c_ --- 3 iICI JOU O iI J.J'.I3.)IC.•L'I.;I'1. Hii Cou:'t Orininal pe1 uo. 1 71 /72. Ori:::ina1 Ci'ininal Caeo iTO. 959 of 1 971 Of the District Court of Sinid. District at inicT efore;- J.n. liroso, . • • , • . . . , . osident !aistrate Haraisi s/o i1ZCC....,...... (Ori:nal iccused) versus The :3)Ublic e . ••,••••. . . . . . . • 1 • ! eJponde1at (Orijinal 2rosecutor) Chare;— Stoalin by Lent c/s 273(b) of the P.C. - The appellant was found wanderin b the LIAR18 and roquostd. by :10 coalai:ant and his cthpanion to carry 1uae :ron on ous to anoher. The baa :ole-.4ow and was =dergoing rpaire ao that i1e paesenera had comet iue to spend at Sinicb. Th.en the appoll.nt vanished. frm the scene 9 he did not bid the conplaiaaiit ±''rouell, ho soo_er had the appellant anisheci than the corrolainant missed his torch. The cc: i.?]_ainant diecr:baI the ap:eliant to o, bye -bander who tool: hi: and a Policenan to the appellant'o lions. Sure enouh the appellant was found with. the' torch rhich. the complaj:aauG is all cci to identifich. ihe accused. w tried and convicted of stoalin,3 •.y a,ent. He L now appe-alin' a a±nst conviction. The p;:oeocuion brou'ht evidence to chow thi.at the torch was found with. the appe_l.a1t :iHie appeL.Lai; on his part did. not claia 0711eISb.1p of th orch. lIe sinply denied being found in OcSOcC1(n of i. iiO Ll COULt L'O 10 ci rneive - LL but to rule U. :t

the 1)PaiJut wa ± ound. in poeseselon of the torch and to convict liai. Unfortunately the coi:plinant never appeared to ,;±VO evidence. So, one ingrodint of the ofunce ownership of the to'ch-cras shown by in 1'.iesible hcars .y. In view of this therefore, the aipe1l:ai.ts conviction coull not have been proper,- wren though it w is lJro;e tILt hie possession of the torch was I was at first inclined to order a retri_aJ_ but as the ellvnt has spont tb.e botter. :iart cf a var iii I do no-b believe that such courco of action would be just considering that he - ias CO11771(rGOa for FJte..lind: the torch which valued at :.. 1 51= on:Ly and that the of:[ ence with which lie w as convicted. was theft by a.;ont. I an satisfied that an order for ret:cii would be unduly harsh for the appellant rho is likely to be saIdled with tern of imprisounent for no fault of his own. The failure to c...:Ll the owner waa the fault o± the prosecu -bicn. I weuld therefore cuasl the conviction, cot aside the sentence nd o ei.... t o iCl 1 a )e relo o fo a ,ith nd in sons other lawful aay IIC has fonfeitd his freeom. lI.r.h. iTil:t:1a, / • a -