19710514 TZHC Arusha3
- Citation
- 19710514 TZHC Arusha3
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 14 May 1971
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 14 May 1971
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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/accusedThe Republic
Respondent/prosecutorAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Duration: 2
- Strokes: 24
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the conviction for house-breaking was proper given the evidence of the time of offence
- 02
Whether the sentence imposed was justified
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
TZHC
Judgment· 14 May 1971
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
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.