19830124 TZHC Mbeya 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.96 OF 1982 (Original Criminal Case No.249 of 1982 of the District Court of Mbeya District at Mbeya Before: J.M. Kiyeyeu, Residcnt Magistrate) HARIDI PJIFAUME LUGENGE...00.O,O ....... APPELL A'NT (Original Accused) versus TBE REPUBLIC. . .... .. . , . , . , . , . .RESPONDENT (Original Prosecutor) T U D G M E N, MROSO J., The appellant was convicted by the District Court of Mbeya for the offencos of being found in unlawful posseasioA of Government trophies and of failing to report such possession to a game officer as required by section 68(1) & (2) of the Vlldlifo Conservation Act 9 No.12 of 1974, On the first count he was sentenced, to three (3) years imprisonment and on the second count to fine.of shs,500/ or two (2) months imprisonment in default., He has appealed to this court against the convictions and sentences. When I heard this appeal I immediately' allowed it by quashing the convictions and sot 'aside th sentences imposed on hirn I reserved my reasons which I now give be1ow. On 5th July, 1982, during night time, game officers stopped a Land Rover which Was found carrying 18 elephant tusks which weighed 99 kgs. and valued at shillings 630A. Three people, not including the appellant, were on the Land Rover, Those three people were arrested. In the course of interrogation one of them is alleged to have said tha' he had bought the trophiesl from the appellant. The appellant was sought for ad when found was charged along with the original three people with the offonces I mentioned earlier above. The appellant became the fourth (4th) accused and the person who allegedly named him became the first accused, . 1 - 2 - During the trial the aeoollmt denied having met or dealt with any of the other three ce—accused persons. He denied ever having had in his possession elephant tusks or having sold any to any of the other accused persons. The first accused in the case when giving his defence before the tal court never said that the trophies had been sold to him by the appellant. He gave a completely different story on how ho cane into :,,,)ssesjsicL of the trophies. The game officers had searched the house and premises of the appellant and nothing incriminatin g ias found. It was obvious that apart from a claim by the gaae officers that the first accused had said lie bought the trophies from the apellant which claim was refuted by the first accused during his evidence in court, there was absolutely no evid:ence at all to connect thi , appellant with the offonces chargcd. The trial magistrate thought that the appellant had been implicetod by an alleged coos,aion from the first accuse:i. Put there was no each confasston if there had been one it was retracted by the eupposed maker of it. The .apro±Lint therefore an ht not to have been found guilty and convicted 0 It was or those reasons that I allowed the appeal. \4 T a, ILLLL)SO C.) Mbey, JUDGE 24.1.1983 Mr. Dhe bar for the app(. ilant Mr. Kapinga, State tt)rney for the JAM/ATM' lima.