na TZHC Arusha 6

F i;; £i,; I: THE HIGH CCUT CF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGh COURT CR, AP1i1AL NC. 154 of 1972 c/F CR. APP. NC . 155 & 156 of 1972 ORIGINAL CRIIVJNAL CASE NO. 484 of 1971 OF HE DIS2CT COURT OF KOROGWE DISTRICT T CcRCGWE Bef ore B D. Clipeta Eoq., ------------------------Resident Magistrate 10 1. HOSSEIN S/C YUSUFU 2.. AMILIEL s/c SOWELE --------------------Appellants 3. ALLY s/o ABDALLAH (Original Accuseds) vers us THE REPUBLI C --------------------------------------- Res pondent (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE: ROBBERY, with violence c/s 285 and 286 of the Penal Code. 20 -- J.UD G M E N T $ The three appellants Hosein s/o Yusufu Ally s/o Abdallah and Amiliel s/o Sowele were convicted of Robbery with violence and each given the minimum sentence under the Minimum Sentences Act. During the night of 7th October, 1971 the complainant was sleeping with his wife and child in a room which was part of 11.is shop. The shop door ws forced open and six people entered the house. He heard 30 gun fire and escaped through the rear door leaving his family in the house. As a result of the gun fire neighbours came and the assailants ran away. On returning the complainant found that his bicycle cah and other it_-; 77, had been stolen. The evidence against the first appellant was that on the 8th October F 1971 together with Appellant No. 2 he sold to PW. 2 a banket, two bed sheets and two pieces of cloth about half their market value. 40 While P.0 3 was with te police this appellant was s-topped on the road with a bicycle and a bag ccntaining nylon strings, a knife sandalas, a new cloth and shs. 40/— cash The appellant was taken to the house of P.W 2 where several items ) besides those P.W. 2 mentioned as having bought, wer . found, The witness said that the ap ellan -t admitted having sold them to PW. 2. The police officer, P.W 4, who investigatd the case sapper -ted this witness. He added that the complainant identified all the items. The complainant himself said that the police called him and'.. he was shown clothes, Kanga, blankets etc and he identified them to be his. Apart from prducing a receipt for the bicycle and pointingL out that the rer reflector was broken -there was no other identification in court. it has - f±cn been pointed oat that identifi6aion of stolen goods is a matter for the court and :,ot the police. A witness must satisfy the court as to the means by which he can pick out goods which he claims. To say these goods are mino; is not such evidence of identification as a court of law can accept. As 1 have indicated above there was some identification of the bicycle and a prima facie case was made out. The appellant said that he wastopped on the road and told that thieves had ran in the area and he too was a thief. He said nothing about the bicycle bat claimed that he did not know why he was 60 in court. There is evidence to sustain the conviction and the appeal is dismissed. /2