19971003 TZHC Mbeya

IN . THE . HIGH COURT-OF' TANZANIA AT MBE'tA CRIMINAL ~ ,....t .' . 65 OF .1996 , APPEAL NOo .., ,,..~ . · ~ t~e·det:ision o,f the District Court of Kyela at Kyela m Cr:un-inAl. ~tie- r-~ · 2') ~f. ~ Before:. M.O. Lilibe - District Mag'istr,te) HILDA MA TANDALA APPELLANT Ve'.':'sus 1. DUKE MWAMBOL\ ) ), 2. AMON MWAIJENGO ) .......•. RESPONDENTS 3•.. MAMBO MWAKASINGA ) JUDGMENT MOSHI 1 J 1 • -.,- .• · 'Phe d~triet court .~ Kyela acquitted thQ three respen.c;tents. Duke Mwambola, Amo:::i Mwaijenge '$nd Mambf ?1wakasinga., of tho offence •f Rebbery with !lfiolenee., eontriu-y ts se~ti4t1s 285 ~d 28& ~f the Penal c~~. The aequittal ~ggriepd tho com:?3lainant; Hilda Matandala, wh~ preferred this appeal in consequenee. Th9 ;ppeal -~; argue·d befere me on behalf of the appellant/complainant by a learn«i state atterney, Mr, Boniface, and it wae resisted by the lea.,-.ned advocate for the respondents, Mr• Mwakolo• The correct version ef the facts established in evidence was this, I say t:be cor:rect ve»ei~•f' t~ taets on acr.ourit of' that the f'aets a3 eetablished in evidence werQ not, as I s:iall demonstrate, correctly giv~m by,; th• trial eo1.U"t , I ' in its judgment. On 26.8.95 there were celebratieftS of snme s.o-t, a,t.. tl}.Q "P-1.lag,e "f the appe::..la."'lt whieh \,iere staged a.t the vi::'_lasa pombe shop. They involved ngomas and bcal poin'be drinking. They were at tended by many vil~ag~rs from that village and from neig'.1bouring villages. Among the local villagers were the husband 0f the a:7:peJ.:::..a:nt, S:io.'ban La:nya PW2~ Dan~en I'-1waipa.ja PW3 and a neighbour of the appellant, Ambele Sabasaba. PW4. Among L1e pers•ns who had come fN)ffl a ,. neighbouring village were the reapondants., Som0 people had taken pombe to the shop pombejfor sale. Some ha;:: brewed pombe there fi",'.,' sale. Among those selling pombe at the pombe shop v;ere the appellant and t:".le first and second respondents • •••••••••• / 2 -· 2 - Ths second rG.e:r:,cm~~:;:1-t :"as claiming that it belonged to him ' ~laiming tha,t. \ii ~ ~ w a s a~~lly using it, wlii::...::i t ~,he appellant ~a ru;~ .. . ~ l)Q..)_~ to he:• ShG .snatched foa -:o.ntainer fnm the. sece~d respondent a!'id -t:ot'k it 'to her house. She had realizec: shs.10,000/= and· she added this money • t& shso?0,000/.= she had making a toL.l of 'shs.80,000/=. She had .wrapped .herself in a piece ~f cl"'th called 11mtandioH, and she tie~ up the money at one 8f its four"(, ends. At home she . continued'.. t• . .sell . pomb•• the ~ppellant, .j.W2 1 PW3. and PW4. . . ·At 9.00 pm .the.-espondent.s at:rived there an! found among others persone . . .. %e se'bond respond~ll't. entered the_ h~se,. held , ;• fl the. appellant, ~d beat her up, dra'.;jod +1ir ou't oi-:th~ ho~se te where t~e first and thil'o respQn.dent& as_ well as the pombe·c.rinking•· people were, Outside the , h •..tse the. first. and third . respo.ndents _, . join~d' tl}.e ~e~•n.d respoi,d'e:a t in assaul tug , . the appellant• Th•ee. present ine.luding P\-42, ~3, and ,PW4-,tn~~ · ,u.,:-· tifi;S• t · to arrest the eituation, but before the;y- ., ·arresi:ed.-tl.\,9 . . . 4~t:ioo ·. .. tk& eecond , respondent. unwrapped the l!'l.tandio :frO\'ll ~::~_ ap?ell:!!~ ~-~ away with it ' ..... ·. , -· . together with the money tied at it followed by tl-.. J f ~ t and--thiN resp()!lden.ts. Th& ap~llant immediately announced ::o ":~1.0.::<?. c::---es·.::n-1;, that h.~ !'IOWJl!r a.. ~tand.i&, were gorl"e. They had seen, th.: a::::::::::i.ul:: and the t.:..:dnz awa~; of th9 mtandia. The:;- ··· . repf?'ted the assault and the theft to t~1eir ce::..l leac.er t_hat same night. Two days later, on 28.8.95, the Ward Executive 0ffic~r,. G~ses Mwambem'be DW8, received a letter from village authoritie8 reporting the aseault and the theft and mentioning the sec0nd res:Jow;l0~1•~ as foe culprit. · The Ward Executive Officer sent a mi2.i tiaman to ar:::-Jst the seC'.t,:r:J:d ·respondent ai:d sent for the .r-,t;:~ .· ·, . apJ4ellant,. The secon.:. responJ.ent wae at'~e'$'.t:~d---,and t-1ent to him, but the appellant did not turn up. She had .preferred reporting ·the r.::.tter to court to reporting it to th_e WEO. ---. 0 0 •••• 0 •• 0 0 . / 3 - 3 - .:r--~ ,?t.-.t.~ _.··_. ___ ~,:.•·.,. ,;;._... _;--·:·-:·:J.,-"4' ·: .... _· .. )_ ... ~_ ,.,...... ;,_:··---:!~~,...,,-~-:~---? ?'- "\ ~- •. -:~: :-E.r, ' ·JA-~ --~~,~~~~nul . ~4:hjp'i s?z;-~i~~~tL~~~e__of ..... __ ailbi-,, ·-- .. .. . . They ~laimed- that they left the pemba sh6p at 5.00 pm and ,,:ent back to their .... / . : . f ?illage. ';hey OU~ fOCJ.r witl'l8689s (DW4~ _DW5, -rM6 and I'JA'.--,) who told t~e trial . I ' . . ~ourt- that they were with . the re.spo!idente .· - ~t the .pombe - phop .. and that. they. .and .· . . .th& re~~denta 1eft. ~ ~-Aho:? at 5.00 ~ togethtw and .iherea:f't~ eaob made • his own way back home. The appellant preferred two groun~ -••f' appeal: y' 1, That the J.earned trial magistrate erred in law in acquitt~g ,the :~eiwndents against !Verwhelming :pr~eecution evidence. . . . · 2,~ .~That the ~ e d ~ l iuagistratt e~td in law and in fact in - . . . ,.;_~,_;.,.::.,,,:,, .. · "" ~ g : ua;due weigl1,t if th~ fact that the eff'ence•~dfit plaee on · 2~i,,, but the etme \fas r,e~o6 ts tht relevant a~hf.ritiee on 28~8,9.5 a latet et two ds.::,~ only• 'f)t? . Mr• BfJlifaee eu~itttd before me that there wae ample _.idence given b)' T' •- . .• PW"l. PW2,- m fl4I FW4 whieh eetabU.sb~d the inv~lvemmt--e:f' the J1eGpe9Qd~ ~ the s:."--- . • ~ ·a5Stult 8ta.and the pldn;i-, th• mtand~ blm-. tho· ajp.~laat .and -that tho Alibi 11'. , ,. ~ . of the r•~m-t• ,ft\tld nat avail them as there wa.e a time la psi> ~f a~- four hours be~on ,,oe pn and 9..cl ~ during which -tho, .cO<Uld have gone te the appeliru,t•• . ., tor that purposJ, However, the" learned state atts-ney argued ,. - . .;:. - - ~. . ,, , ' that as tbf foio~a app1i9'1 was not frp the ~pee~,--,t' gett~g the i:tems but to l. settle a seoro -~ .QVW . tile conta.:.ner 9 a conviction . f<>r.- robbery cc,uld -~t - .stand, and that they t>Nbt to l)e c~victed of Assault oc.,..:as:.oning actual bodi;J..y harm· cODtracy .. - . ,' ...... ,f. •• • • .., • to s~c~j..cl) 241 of 'the Penal c-,de as a PF3 (Ext P1) $owed tiµ,\~ she .-..jl\E&1.a- • :· ' h ) ~ I •. "' • . ,, - . ~- ' ~,;. • ~dil~ ha;-m. 1'k4~ ~i• a c~,;i;j~ in Jose-gh Sha.gembe v,R. L~'- Tr~~ ~.a cited and ~tlitd µpon, Mr.• Mwako1o, :..,r his part, submitted th:-.,t th~ alibi or: _the respondents gave _rise to the q_uestio:: oi iear.tification \1h::..:h, he argu!3d, was not sa.tisfa.c- ·:1~ -torily mad~,-, Tlio ::.:.;,_'"'Dt;.·••• '1.dVCC!.2."::~ .3t::,•.,;t;:Z':'C t~\,·. ,:r.:.._..;,.:rt;}f:1 ~:f;,la.t-s ;r•e;.,ertfog of the inciaent-by the, ap,el:.::nt to '.-.IEO.,J!-~ _ and_ the _ment.-iing-- hinwef only ·- ·.. , the aec&nd ... respondent - ~-. ~. and ::--.~t- the rest of the r3Spc,l\d~ SA well •. ·............_./ 4 J. :r.,•• 41iov1ca~ . . ~ii~L~. thci. to~~~~-~,:-,i.:'.:1~ts; ~ bi~ .totirt caet dooots on the Cl'~dibili ty ~f the. appellant, PW2 t p·.:3 ahd Pw4 and ~cqu±tted . ' • ~ r F,irst.1, .tJ<i.at th£1 ·!l'.!)p&l~ ~d ~epcrted the incic.ent to vJEO l~te, that is~ two do.:'s after its occt..:rance 0 With respect; C • .this \'las a misdfrection on the facts esta;:C-ishec' in evidencei The appellant did niit mak" a: .. y rep~rt to WEOfl That is what the lrJEO told the -t;rial, court. The . &. appel:le..nt did ·not r~port the incident to him. She promptly reported. the assault .i. and t>e~~t t6 th~r cell lead.er, :::i.nd the village authorities, in turn, reported th.a in:cident to WEO two days later by a letter. So the appe:1. lant was not res~nsible f~r the late reporting of the incident to the WF'....,O, and the ~awing of the adverse inf erenc:e against her on that account was improper and unjustified. •. Set•nd, that the appellant in he~ report to WEO mentioned only the second respondent and ~ot all the respondents. I repeat, the appellant did not report the incident to th~ WEO. She reported the incident to :the cell leader and ' mentiened all the reependents as she did in her report to the court. So the .appellant could ntt be held respQnsible feP the-contents e! the report made to the WEO• . The trial e•urt, again, had misdi~~cted.itself. on the facts established ',. in evidente•~ And third, that the respondei,.ta c~uld n&t have ~ssaul ted a.ad.. .=t.oJ_.Pl'l- from the appellant .on account of that they had r'3£t.trn~ ha..c.k, t,c tl'l.eir village. With even great,~ J'~~c:,t to. th¥ trial magistrt..t:), it eeems that. he was not pro·perly seized tf the ev:icience before :1.iiri. ,;:-.:.- the ev:it~ence e.!!ltablished was that they were seen leaving the pombe shop at 5.00 p.n, and the ~u~s~i•a .whother they had actually gone ba<i~--: to their individut..l homee in their villag~ was an •pen queeti•n, And beside.;, theirs was the neighbotming village, and assuming that they had returned to their village, the four hours S}:)-::tn of ti.'Tla gave rise to the glaring ;'.'Ossi'::,il::.-:·, t:·::-.t t:::.8y could h:c-~vs returned to the house of the appellant in ti.me for th,s ..:sz~u.l t ·1.:1d t~1e takinr· of the items. As a matter of law, an accusei ·pe:-son is nnt required to prove his alibi. It ie sufficient for him if the alibi. raises a rec,a~•l~ 40'Q~- SEE. Ali Salehe Msutu v,~•- ( 19So) TLR I ( 'Sc-1rt. t,f Appeal)• .In a:::..1 fhe ~cum,gtanc96 of i:his ~ . ·'--. ... , Jt. ~ • am satisfied ~!ihat ~ al-ibj. M '.the I'a~r,ond.e~t~ fell short r.,f_ ;neei:::ing. 'that • / .• .. • : • • · , :: : • •~... • ,.; :•· 1 '"cQjti Their ~~iibity in t.he .:i.noident· ~s ;established by ov2rwheJ:t;:::ng evidence~ ' • i: ~ t • •. • ; • ~• '• •a • ~[ • • • •' • ' • -There ~s ::=t<:~u~ate id~ri.t:if~~tiO:to·:: T:~e f~ui- t>rk~~tioh '-t witnesses (P~'11 (a~:ipellantL . . . • • . i .. ·, PW2, PW3 a'--.d PW4f saw th ..) :·est-ondents .. and described in c"_2·bil w:~at th0y c.id to ~ . the appeEant. Tlley had 'se·;ii · .·itl: the ::!'.'9S~_Jond::mts 9.t tho vill~ ;;e --:,ombe shop in the afternoon. The re\spondcnt.J :1ad a motive for p;oing to the .hEmse bf th~ appellant, which we,s to pursue, and to se-l;tle sc~res for, the pombe meas1:1,ring " x....... - ' • -- -•.- ·~• .:. :. •• ¥< , ...... container which the second responc\m:t· h:;li~ved belonged-:to 'th;rri. The ·witn~~;es- had pr~mptly repl'lrted the incident to :their: c~ll leader mentiqrying the. res:P9.,~1A1~n,,t.s: •• .. . • •. .!. ; • • -·-·-:.:_,_. ·.... - · • . • as the cll1prits. The appella~t had actually. been_ assaulted - . ..· .and her prop'.ir.-ty , tak<m away; and the~e· c,~id ~6t.have been any reason 5tory against the respondents as she already had t~e , ,,, . ·\_. ~· .• 1 which she believed belonged to. h~r. For these reM~'rtif;{,-r·would respectfully ,,.....,.,.. , ... agr-ee vii th the learned ~tat~ a ttorn_ey thaJ 'the a~qui't:tal of J;~ · 'i:-_;,ej::ianertrtrt~c-;;~as . •. , . ~ . .• . ·;..,: ·. •' ·, /:~ :. t.~.~- . ___.-,.,:. . . against the weight ~f the evidence and that their ~omp1icit;-t in t1:le mntter .was established beyond a re.G)..sonable doubt. That the appellant was assaulted it Js. ;qettled. From the PF3 (Ext P 1 ) it ~- ~-- ..1·•--· - - .. .. . . .. -- . . . .. ·~.t C.•S:t::.•:: ;: .. · . is evident thc\t she was occasj.pn 7s:J:· ?~-t:i.][~l ;bodily liaiino;;!"n- is· trite law that ~P~.; -.. '. .. ·: . . . .' ,...... ··. i .. - . ·,. ~ \, :··... :·,: .. . . ., . -,ffence of roboerr, :j.s· eoinmitt9i;J,·_,whe-n viol2nce· er' th~ threat of. it is useq. in. • I .. • • ' ! ,.,··, • ·., ~•. ' . : .·. ' ;~ • .. ··c.::, ";,, ·) ·•'· . • . : , • ',. • • • ' . • • .. ..., ~ - .. i,. -ct . ~. ;. ·. order to obtafo or :rete.in property from its owner._. In the cir~unistances of this case, I would respectfully agree with Mr .. ~?~iifac·~ toot the. fbrc,va;:1;>:Li'ed was --- - ,. ·;.. · _: - .- · tre .. ,_ --· - = ·'.- · · · · :;;- ~-, not. f_~r..th'~-:.p11rpo$e <if- 'M,i:trininit°the mt.:i.ridio and (. ,mon·ef~:- - Ra:bh.m"' •it was to setJ+~ _ • ......_.- •• '• • ' • • • ' • •• •• •" ,,.._ • •·•••~ "• ..... ~ ,~.~--r• a. i;,;dore over the conta~~:~~_j:~?P.~~t~j_~S.o. f.l--~e-ririction "ror ,1.'°'bbery_. ~~-~ tenable . ' here. •Bur .I. nrii s:3. Hs:t:i.ed -tha t the respondent13 ,stole from the 'appellant. ; Under ~\__...: . section 300( 1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1985. a person rnny be c~nvicted of a mi:1or offence which _is cognate to the offence chnrg2d, as well as a minor offence which is :ri:-ot cognate to, th2 o:::'f2:-::;e c~1a::.'gcc:, r2spectively. I accordingly ·allow t':1e a.ppeal, quasl1 a~.d s,:-t aside the o.cqui ttnl of t':1e respondents, and hereby conv::..'":t the respondents of '.:he e,ffence of Theft~ ·•ontr9-1'1 .' to section 265 of the Penal Code, and Assault occas:i.on:i,pg :-·· . actual . bodily . hcl.rm, .. . }--::." r.:--;r· ....... ?'.·; ~ ·.;...r '!:-' . . . . ~-- ....i..:r: ~_1; ... - .-:_ •;;; •::·.-_ ~.. .t. .; ·_:.,~ ·► 6 : ,,,. ,.. : ... ---. ·' / ...---···" .JUDGE ....... : · · AT; MBEYA •. : ------- R-SCOR'J Mr.· Boniface - My l<,~d,,,. we hnve no p:-.~,t record • .. .. · e· Mr. Mwal-:olo - My lord_. a.11 the respondents are :elderly persons. ·They have dependants.· We pray that these matfors- sho'Uld :13e considered by the coqrt. Allocutus by .res~ondents, ·'· '·. ·.\ Fir~t ·respon·d·e4i·:; · -~ am :65 years old. I{y w:i,fe' is deceased. I have . . . . . ,_.;dependants •. l have b~_~n ~perated on. I pray for leniency. -: "' . ·- ...... - Second. ..r.esg.mdent . I am 56 years ~d~ and I .. have dependants. I am a . . •·· .· . -;.. ..~ ......,~• sI~hl.y person, :~ . , __ , .. ~, or•,•;(,'. .· i • ,-. T am. 5!5. ye'ars -~ict~'·:· ·:r ·ha~-~~ deperid~ts~. '· · . . -, . Third respondent .., -- . Sentence _.., qi,~--- _r4.• ~:. ·· rn···sehtencfrlg :the respondents as I .am about to d("J ·r have taken into c"nsideration what has 'oeen sa~d for, arid by, the respondents in rrtitiga tion. I have also taken into account all the circumstances pertaining fr the 'perpc- tration .,:( £he offences. ,. ' 1 ~1 ·contrary concurrently,. ...... I., ' ~: The respondent are ord.er to ~'.:itur:1 -'.:o ;::h2 0::::Jella:::1t the mtandio or its money ~qirtvalent, as well as the sh,s.80,0JO/- t:-1~,,y stole from her., They ::;,re also .ordered to pay to her a compens:i.tion o: Shs.10;000/=- in all for the fojuries •••••••• / 7 7 she sustained, tTUDGE Court: Appeal rights explained. JUDGZ \\ 3 October 19970 Fer Appellant: Present in perso~1 as well as Mr. Bonifc..ce, state a ttornG;r e For Respondents: 1a1, :prese!'.!t ::u:r1 r2prcsont:::c1. by Mr. :v!wnlrnlo, advocate~ \