Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

19710514 TZHC Arusha3

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The conviction for house-breaking was substituted with burglary due to the offence occurring at night, but the sentence remains unaffected. The appeal fails except for the substitution of the conviction.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed except for substitution of conviction

Orders

  • Conviction for house-breaking quashed and substituted with burglary contrary to section 294 of the Penal Code
  • Sentence remains unaffected
  • Appeal dismissed

02

Material facts

Parties

Rassan s/o Mohamed

Appellant/accused

The Republic

Respondent/prosecutor

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Duration: 2
  • Strokes: 24

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant denied guilt and appealed against both conviction and sentence.
Respondent
The prosecution presented evidence that the appellant was caught inside the complainant's room at 11:00 p.m., fled with her handbag, and was apprehended with the stolen item.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 186 of the Criminal Procedure Code

    A court may convict a person charged with house-breaking or a kindred offence under sections 294-298 with another kindred offence if evidence supports it.

  2. 02

    Section 346 of the Criminal Procedure Code

    Defects in the charge are curable under the law.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The conviction for house-breaking was substituted with burglary due to the offence occurring at night, but the sentence remains unaffected. The appeal fails except for the substitution of the conviction.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed except for substitution of conviction

  • Conviction for house-breaking quashed and substituted with burglary contrary to section 294 of the Penal Code
  • Sentence remains unaffected
  • Appeal dismissed

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 14 May 1971

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 14 May 1971

19710514 TZHC Arusha3

WC - .- - IN ISE Tff OH COURT OT TANZANIA AT ARU;RA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI!INAL APPEAL NO, 38 OP 1971 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1555 OF 1970 OF THE

DISTRICT COURT OP TANCA DISTRICT AT TANOA Bof ore L.A. Mwesiwno, Esq., Resident Magistrate RASSAN /o MOflAMED ... ...........,............,.,.,, APPELLMrJAccusED versus THE REPUBLIC ....... ....................•.....,•.•, RESP0NDIN/PR0SBCLJTQR CHARGED 1. Rouse-breaking contrary to section 294 of the Penal Code Cap. 16 Vol. 1 of the law.

2. Stealing contrary to eection 265 of the Penal Code Cap. 16 Vol. 1 of the law. J tJDQM E N P KWIKIMA, AG. J. - The appellant was convicted of housebreaking and stealing. He was sentenced to two years and twenty f oar strokes. Be is now appealing against both conviction and sentence. The proocution uatisfied the court as to the following facts. On 915/70 the complainant, a lady, left her room to attend a call of nature. This was at 11.00 p.m. Whenhe returned to her rom, she found the appellant inside it. As the appellant was a complete stranger to her, the complainant cried for help, whereupon the appellant took to his heels, making off with the oomplainant's handbag in the same process. The alarm was raised. The appellant was given hot pursuit and captured wit!zoat being lost eight of. The complainant's handbag was found on him at the time of his capture. The trial court believed the eye witnesses of the prosecution, and not without justification. The appellant's denial of guilt was so unreasonable that the evIdence on record confounded him. This appeal would not have been admitted for hearin but for the fact that whereas the appellant was convicted of house-breaking the evidence showa that the offence committed was burglary in as much as the time when it was committed was held to be 11.00 p.m* which is an hoar of darkenesa. This defect is however, curable under sections 346

and 186 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The latter section makes it possible for a court to convIct a person charged of housebreaking or a kindred offence under sections 294 - 298 with another kindred offence. Accordingly the conviction of the trial court is hereby quashed and substituted with one of burglary contrary to section 294 of the Penal Code. The sen*enoe will not be affected. Save as herein stated the appeal fails in its entirety and it is hereby dismissed. Aruaha 14/5/71 (H.H.AI KUXIaMA) AG. J tJ D 0 E jsm

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Penal Code Cap. 16 Vol. 1 section 294

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code Cap. 16 Vol. 1 section 265

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Procedure Code section 346

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Procedure Code section 186

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.