19800208 TZHC Dar es Salaam2

1; 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TLNZNII .tT DR ES SLM IPPELLLTE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT C'RmIN.L LPPEL NO.192 OF 1979 ORIGINLL CRIMINLL CiSE NO.50 OF 1979 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF KILOMBERO DISTRICT LT I?.j Before M.J.Lung'ombe Lsq; District Magistrate H.JI 1VIUSHI. . . . •. . . . . . . . . •. . . ..PPELL.LNT Versus THE REPUBLIC ........................ RESPONDENT Charge: 1st Count—Burglary Contrary to Section 4 294(1) of the Penal Code. 2nd Count - Stealing Contrary to Section 265 of the Penal Code Cap.16 of the laws.. JUDGMENT • IVLPIGiNO, 3. - I confess I am at a complete loss to understand why this appeal was admitted to hearing. The appellant was charged with burglary and stealing contrary to sections 294(1) and 265, respectively, of the Penal Code • He was convicted of the crimes and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment for four years and one year, respectively. No dispute arose that the dwelling house, of - the complainant Ramadhani Mkoka at 'fakara was broken• into at night and his bicycle stolen therefrom.The incident took place on or about the 23/3/79. Ramadhani did not see the culprit as he was fast asleep. There was also no dispute that the stolen bicycle was found parked Outside the house of the appellant on 5/4/79 in the evening. Three witnesses deposed that at that time the appellant was sitting about three paces from the bicycle. The same witnesses confirmed the compla- inant 1 6 account that when the appellant was questioned about 'it he claimed that it belonged to him, In court the appellant denied that allegation and wanted the court to believe that the bicycle had been left at his house 2/. . . -. -S - 2 - by a stranger... The court believed the prosecution witnesses and found that the bicycle was in the appellant's possession on 5/4/790f course the court was entitled to that finding. Further, the court was of the opinion that the facts of the case permitted the application of the doctrine of recent possession. That doctrine says that where, as in the present case, it is proved that premises have been broken into at night and property stolen therefrom and that soon after the breaking the accused has been found in possession of the property, it is open to the court to convict him of burglary and stealing. Having regard to the time which had elapsed between the commission of the offences and the discovery of the bicycle, I think no appellate court can reasonably'. fault the trial court for invoking that doctrine.. I feel, therefore, that the conviction is impregnable and that it should prevail. With regard to the sentences, there can hardly be any question that they were deserved, the appellant having had a record of thirten previous convictions, ten of which were in respect of similar or aflied offences. In the final event, the appeal is dismissed in its entirety. Delivered. Dar es Salaam (D • P .M.iPIGLNO) 8th February,1980... Judge. ..