19920212 TZHC Tanga1

.J •· 4 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZ.:U1ll .AT Ti~GA APPELL!'-i.TE JT.mISDICTION HimI COtmT CP..nrntu. fJ>P:El;lL JJ'Or82 OF 1991 OllIGDTAL aan.:Illi\L c::.sE NO~ 462 OF. 1990 · OF TM DISTiliaI' cotm.T OF TANG.::.. DISTl1IOI1 1~ T..-u-TGA BEF'OI{Es E. liMt..SI ESQ. IUSID~lT MAGISTB....~E . . ... ,:. JORN ·-· FRLNOIS ••••. ;~~i-4'"''' ••••• _..~ .~.-•• ~- •••••••••• lll'PELLi'UiJT f ''"' :.. . ,,. ~- '' . . 'VTIJ.SUS · \ T!I:3 mrrrED RDPUBLIC, ' 0 0 0 .• 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 •• 0 •• , • o .n:lS?ONDZNT JUDG:;:;M:aNT: 'I1he appellant, John .F.L~aneia, was found gui,.lty of receiving stolen prol)ei-ty c/s 31'1 as o:f the Penal Coda. Re was sentenced to five years imprisofunent • Ha is appealing a.g-ainst ·that· finding and sentence~ . . It ua.s established by the preseotion at the tz-ial of the appellant that on 9th December, 1990 at a.bout 21.00hrs, PW2 Radra.1 was at her home ala~ street Ho.8 Tariga ]iu:nioipality baking bread. l~t home with her were other domestic sc:rvants among whom was one Joseph Raphael. The said Joseph was nearby performing some domestic 'cho:;;-es. ifuile preparing and. 1Jclci1,g b.i:-ea.d, Pi72 had ts.lcen off and put aside hei- golden ring. L.fter the baking she forgot all a'uout the ring. When she subsequently remembered her ring and went to colloct it.from whe:re aha had loft it, it 11as gone. She asked Joseph a.bout it. Joseph denio.d any know- ledge about it. She let the matter, 80 at that. On 10/12/90 at about .3.00p.m" • Pl11 Hadija. .Ali., the mother of Pil1, returned home ft>om Muheza. .PK2 informed her of tho loss of t.ho z-ing. Pli1 sent for PH'3 Saidi. Ma.kn.la., the 10 coll load.or of tho a.rea.. When co·n£ro11tod by ?.i-13, Joseph is allegod to have confessed to having stolon tho ring and took it to tho app;'.;lllaflt to be sold. Tllo appellant wc::.s traced and the two were 2..l:'rosted and charged accordil'lgly• •• . •/2. - 2 -· At thoi:r trial bo-th acoused persons denied having committed the .offence&· as ollargod o:;:, a.t all. Joseph doniod to have made the ~ oonfcssion at ·0.11. lrevortheless tho t:da.l court found ca.oh GUi,lt.y on t:10 basis of the alleged co:nfossion of Joseph. The Republic ·did not seek to suppro:-t the oonviction of tho appollo,.nt as it was baaed on the denied confession of his co-accused, In comn.cti:ng the appellant the trial oourt holds 11 0n tho 2nd count to _the 2:nd a.ccuaed . po:;:-son the above ovidonco is to the offect that sinc0 the 1at accused did point him to be a. recoivor of the stolon ril'lg before prosecution witness• I fi11d. tho ovidcnco very strong and implicating. Basing on tho above foregoing a.na.lynic I~ aatisficd that the prosecution has ma.n.asod to prove tho charged offences beyond all rocWonablc shadows of' doubt and 011 the . same footing I find both accused persons guilty to tb.-;t roopoctiw com1ts, 11 Without rogistoring a conviction the trial coUt't procood0d to sontcnoo themo The above passage bcaro out Mr. ltiukru'ldaro.*s lco..rnod State l~tto:rnoy, on his submisoion that tho 1:..ppolla.nt wos convicted oololy on tho alleged oonfoasion of his co-accused. However, I Will for for -tho moment assume that Joseph c!.id freely confess to having stolon tho ring of PW2e I will ·further a.osumo that he did tell the prooocution witnesses that he liM. passed it on to tho appellant Ol1d tho latter admitted m.ving rocoivod it. _The quostion is whoth.or this confession o.nd admission could a form a basis of a col'IV'iotion und.G'.l' S.311(1) of tho Penal Coda. To secure a sound conviction und.ci: s.311(1) .of tho Penal Code, tho prosecution must p;t'oVC beyond reasonable doubt that tho accused · not only roooiwd and/~ roto.inod ntolen pr~porty. It must go. fu:(-thor and provo that the accused .received o:nd/or rota.inod tho •aaid ·property knowing or having reason~ to believo the same to bavo boo11 stolon, . 1· - 3- It io now sottled l~r that 111<:nowil:1& and haVing reason to boliovo" io not satid'iod by proof tho,t tho eccuscd ouopcctod tbn.t tho goods wore otolcn noz, that Duspocting that tho goodo woro. otolon, oo/aho doliberc.toJ.y closed his oyos to the consequences. It io trite law that ~ f gooo ooyond suspicion in that tho accused may suspect that good.·J are otolan without b.r::ving that doe;reo of conviction required for n. belief. That thi:::: is tho J,.aw in this country was thus succintly stated by Lugoki:ngira. 1 l.!.g. J ( o.s ho then was) s :r1t wo.s ota.tod with ov..ffioicnt lucidity in :t'hpiya.n s/o Olondotoo and others v.n. (1970) BCD 74 that a, clw.rgo of rccciVing stolon cattlo is mutually W."1ttot :from a. chn.l·cc of rctru.ning. It hao to bo oatabliohod that tho accuncd knew or lui.d ~oo..oon to boliovo that the cattle hv..d. boon f0lonioualy obtained. Thie point Wl10 onphacizod in n. Va Iffohamed Nawola ( 1964) · m.1i..353. It is not enough that the accused ouspooto tho prop0rty to lw..ve boon fclonioW:Jly obtained. Il0 has either to know or to .havo reason to boliovo in tho oxiatonoe of o, felony. To h£.ve a reason to beliovo mea.110 to llold a,' pooitivo view of certai11 otato of affairs and io on a highor plane tbnn merely being auspicioUG," in , , OBOMYO O:BEl:iGA v,a. Cll1'1'P1 N0.302 OF 1973 {Mwanza lloei--otry)-. I£ 11 la10wlodgo 11 or "1·coo01mblo belief," then, io 110t :pl"oved by moro suspicions, then it cannot bo oota.bliohcd by surmise or be 11101.'oly . . a.c;cumod. In tllc aooo at hand thc:."o woo not oVGn a cbrod of ovidcnoo to oota.blioh oitho:c tha.t tho cppella.nt on receiving tho ring (we aro otill o.aoUL1i11g tho.t ho did) ouopcctod it to have otolon or was in Q'lywa.y in o. pooition to haw reacon to believe that the oamo had I boen otol_en. Tho prooeoution only otrc.muouoly a.ttomptod to prove \ tho theft and T0ceivin8'. It totally ignored the logc,l need to produco ovidence, di:l:.-oot or ciroumotc.ncial, to eota.bliah tho othGl.' eooential. . ' ingredients of th(;) offonco. Tho trial court l'ro.o equally oblivouo of thio. I hc.vo oca.nned the evidence_ of cve~y prooooution Witnoso, but I WaQ una.blo to coma across a scintilla. of evidence whioh would go to -4- J_lt'OV9- tho ~ . ht s.uch. evidonce wo.o l-tantine., it was iiuproper for tho tr.uu OO'tlJ:1; to find tho appollnn-t guilty ao chat'god and accordingly could not havo juotif'iab~ o~.icted him• On the ovidonco on rocord, the appellant w-.:,o innocent of a.izy- offence undox our lo.w a.nd hio inoa.ccra.tion for a. pc:rie-1 of five ycai,o wn.o logally unwarranted. The finding of the trial 001.L.,t tha.t tho a.ppclla11t wa.c guilty a.o chargod ia a.ooordi11gly- . . qUa.Dhod 2..r~d tho acntence of' imp:rioonmcnt is oot hGreby oet a.aide • ..\s r. matter of general information and benefit of the learned trial ma.gistrn:ta, s.33 (2) of the To.nzn.nio.. :mv:id~ncc Act, 1967 mclcoo it a.bunda;ntly clcD.!' that n. conviction of an accuned pcrcon cllall not be bo.ood aololy on a. confo.:rnion by a co-accv.ned. Things bocome own worse when the alleged confccoion ic repudiated o;nd/or retracted ac lfs.G the 0000 hero, 1~0 there woz no othei:: cogent evidence to implicato tha n.ppella.nt in anywc..y1 ;;w r.ir. I,1:ukandara :rightly :::ubmitted, ho was ontitled to a.n a.cqw.ttal• For the f~egoing rco.oono, thi:::: appoD.l is horeby allowed in ito ontircty. The appellaut to be rel.on.sod forthwith unlosa othorwioo lawf'ully datru.ned. ---1.1~~ ( 3. 111. IC[-1Ull1J;,JCi:Jl(JWl.) JUDGD Dato; 12/2/92 Corams m.1:r.K. Rt.itakaJ:'lgWa, J s Appellant in poroon Fol~ llcapondonta Mr. I~'Ohe s/:..,ttornoy ni:-. Leonarda n./1. C0tmT1 Jud.gemcnt delivered in open court thio 12th dey of Fo brue.:ry, 1992 nt ,,r~~·-:· , · ,j .. (. ~- - • ;_:', ... ·~· (::n M.K · ;.! '· . JODGin 12/2/1992 /ot