19880502 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN Tfu; HIGH CuU.t<T 0F 1'ANZhNIA AT. LJll.rt ES bALAJ-t.M tt~P~LL~TE JUHib~lCTI0~- HIGH CvU.c<T C.t<IMIN.,;.l, J-t.PPE;.L Nvo 35 UF 1988 l,·.nIGINr1.L CHIMINAL Cll.b~ Nv. 473 vF 1986 vF Th.ti ...iLST~lC~ Q.i:JJRT -vF llJU/4 J.JISTlUCT AT KI.SUTU BU'ulili NJi.b.ttl.'iCH,t; J • .14.C. ES-~. P.i:tlNC:U-JU. RJ.:;S~!r ~l~XD' , /\~ , , ,'t- · JvN;.1H MW#1K!T11LU • ••••••••••••••••• • •••••••••• APPELLANT (uriginal ~c-us.ed} e-Jl-...u( 7 l'~i.1:., versus Ui~I'l'B.µ tU!.PUBLlc.,, .... , •••• .., ................ • RESP0NlJEN'r ( u ,-; sw-l nos@<: ut OZ') • i-1;:-,DLI. J. ,·1.p:i!1:;lli::.nt and four other aceus-e-d p.era-0.w;. were coIWi~e.ci Qf one c-_ u:i.t 0f ::iteulin6 'by Public .S.ervant contrary to bectione 2?0 and 265 of th1:; ~enul Cutle. ~ach of them ...w.s sentenced to jail for a term ~f }iv~ yeurs. fhis ap~eal is aeuinst both eonvic..ti.on a.no &enten.oe. Norrated briefly, the facts of tho case are that appellant and his co-uccus1..:d persons were emJ;>loyed by Tanzania 1:tailwaye Corporation~ Ln the mnteri~l day all of them jointl3 eolle<,ted l..00 piecee of ga1vanised ~i~es fr0m the Corporation's main store and they were supposed to send tn~lli tu thd Cor1'oration 1 s workshop. It is alleged that appellant se1:.t th& sc.iu 1>ipes to the shop of sixth c1.ccused who in this ease was .s-,:::,:.:'.retely charc:;ed and convicted of Heceiv:Lng stolen property eontr~ry tc 0Jciion 311 of the ~enal Code. 'l'he learnea btute .H.ttorney who ap1-eured !or the .ttepublic declined· tc su~~ort the conviction. He w~s of the opinion that evidence on ~~cl,rd tlG0s not j?rove the guilt of the ap)ellant beyo~d reasonable ... cu'L>t. In fact he conceded to the grounds of the appeal. ( 'l'he conviction of the av1,>ellant anct his colleagues largely u.0~.-vncls on th"' excul1,Ji:itory st&tement of th.e six accused p·erson. '.I.b.e ~lL·r;ed stolen pipes were found at the shop of the six accused and wl,i.0n a.sk0d h(; ulle 5 ed tho.t the same were brought there by the appellant u1.c, his fellow ruilwuys workers. It is an established vrineiple of "ie L.w thc--t nL• ccnviction based wholy on the exculpatory statement of CO• L.ccus1::d cun be sustnined. For exumpl·e in Mabula Mang'weng'we Manma 1rC1 i,e~~- Cr.~~~• No. 4 of 1982 the Oo~rt of ~ppeal had this to say:• " • .,vie are satisfied that both courts below erred in taking · into cvhsideration the unswQrn statement of the fourth accused since what the fourth accused said in that statement wns not a confession but an exculpatory statement in•wnich he shiftetl the blame from himself to the appellant. Such __ evidence can be used, for wh.:.tever it is worth, only against· its m.:..k1:;r, that is the fourth accused, and not ae;ainst the ap~ell~nt or any other accused person jointly charged with the fourth accused. The law concerning exculpatory t:Jtatement is so well estublished that we need not r~fer to i:.<llY l!rt:vious uuthurity at 1,>resent in this cas~. 11 - 2 ... "·vnc~ in as much as the conviction of th~ appellant and h i s . ~ ~ • iG substar.tiully ,f ounued on thE:t ~uw,w.p<1.tory s t a ~ oi the sixth accused, the same can not be upheld. ac&-0r-d.iJ:i,gly the ~,QJ'JP'.i,0-t.i<)& ie 4uc.sheu. and sentence set aside. ,~nd acting on rav:i..8-i~ ,, _E..Q.Wer:s, I <-iUu.sh convictions an~ se-t uida .,eQ.,t.en-c~& iii. N&pect of 2nd~··3rd, 4th c..rw 5th accused persons. It is ordered that appellfUU-8 and the other f0ur accused. versons m,":"ntioned ab~ ..should be r , e ~ i.mlJ>e~ly uLlcsB cth~rwise lawfully uetaiu~~. j.Ji.I.{ .GS . .;,-.Lc1.Hl':'lo 2n,~ l'-'JC~y, 1988 • ".t'cr the .1.-.epublic hr. Kyuki ..c·c.-r the ,; 1.pellunt - ,-.bsent.