19830218 TZHC Tabora
The conviction could not be sustained because the identification of the shoes was unsatisfactory and the trial magistrate improperly shifted the burden of proof to the appellant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19830218 TZHC Tabora
- Parties
- Appellant: HISL-1; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 18 February 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Theft, Identification of Stolen Property, Burden of Proof
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
HISL-1
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the identification of the stolen shoes was satisfactory
- 2 Whether the appellant's explanation of innocent purchase was adequately considered
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction could not be sustained because the identification of the shoes was unsatisfactory and the trial magistrate improperly shifted the burden of proof to the appellant.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- conviction quashed
- sentence set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
- - - — IN. THE HIGH COURT OF TA1IZ.ANIJ\ fT T!3ORi ArPELLTE JURISDICTION • abora Rgitry) S (iic) CRIMIN!L Ar 130 OF 1979 ORIGINL RI1IN-\ LSE NO 173 OF 197. OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF 11.11,3 1,IM DISTRICT 1VI IVJASWA 3ef ore SHIIJOGILE, Eeq., DISTRICT MtIST' TE II1SL- 1 . AIPLLII'' Vorsus THE RErTJBLIC d ..RE$rOND1NT CHARGEO 1st Count Dur1ary c/s 294 (1) of theen]. Code Cp. 16 VolI of the Revised Laws. 2nd Count 5tealin c/s 265 of the 2on - Code Car. 16 Vol I of the Revisei. Laws. .5. • -. 5- J U D G r HIrTA, J. It was undoubtedly esta' 1b!,is'hed'1.V'ha fol1-wing a house- breaking into the complainant's. houe sevdal clothes and a pair of shoes were stolen from t h e npIainants house, and that some five days later, the apel1ant was found inposse ssion of a poir o SftO'b wja.1c..1 tft cori1 linant jurported to identify. The appellant's defence was that he had lought the shoes from a person he named as. Charles; and liq called two witnesses on his own behalf to corroborate hiii - In the first place, and as conoedby the learfled state attorney, the evidence of identifictIori of the shoes was far from satisfactory, bearing in mind that the shoes in question were articles of common manufacture0 - Secondly, apeiusal of the trial court's judgment leaves one with a clear iinrros3ion that th learned magistrate was trying to look for evidence on the ;art of the defence, proving that the appellant did in fact innocently buy the shoes.-