19900821 TZHC Dar es Salaam

.:u"'PELLATE JDRI3DICTIOH ITIGII,-COUilT GRIUWiJ.i APPEAL N0.101 OF 1990 (Fron oricinnl c&im.nal Co.se Ho• 274 of 1986 of the District Court ot Ildn Dis•~riot 2..t Kisutu) J lil.JJJ.J:.. llliLY• • • • • • • • ., • • • •• • ... 4 , " • • • • • • • • ,, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.t.FPELIJJ!T ( Original li.ccuoocl) • vsrsv.s 1 111..Wl ll1UTED REP-u.BLIC • • • • .... • • • • •• • •• • • • • u ..... u • • .. • • .~ ..RESPOIT.DEifll , .· ( ◊.i:'iginal Proseoutor) Jt1DGJ.I&IT ?.U').CI{JJ.JJ/:..'J,,- ,J • It m,s cllegGd a.t the trial tl'l<."/li one J ru.nln. s/o Ally, tho appellMt in tlu.o Court, did a.ssa:u.l. t one Doy Ia.a.. This is allGcred to ha.vo token pl['..()O at ·about G.30 P•I!l on 2nd March, 1986 ~t KijitocyaJJa, Dm- cs Sale.am. jJooc.uso tho :i.11ju:ry 1rhich was allogcdly :i.nf'liotod on tho conpioine.nt was dcsorl1Jod as ndnnaerous ha1'I:l11 by the nodiccl offioor who troaated the complainant the appGll~t wn,s1 as a rosult,'ohcxgGd 1.U1der s.228 of tho Ponal Code. mi..~t is described ns dai,gorous haro 011 tho Police Form 3 (populc'.l'ly know.n. as PF 3) is es follows:- "( 1) Sprain-UT~ vll'ist ·!· Rt Tl~ULlb• . ( 2) Contusion of tho ol1e st"• No1·1 11 ~l~crous h2.l"rn11 is d.ofinocl tmd.er s.5 of the Pan8l Code to maoi1 that h2.rm which endangers life. Tho 00L1pl:Jinc?.nt 's 01-111 nooount n.t tho ·'Gri,..".,1 \ is sufficiGl'lt ovidenoo wbioh shows th..1.t tho ha:rt1 ho suffered is nowhere norir that htJZ'JU 1-1li11i o~visag.od under s.228 of tho Poncl Coclo as recd with s.5 of tho Pcncl. Code., For he scys th0t m"tcr a fow cxcb.21-:ieed"_•• <:the ['.()au.sod hit mo with t, stool••• Thoroc:.ftor we wont to Oystorbcy Polioo.,. On tho follor~ d~ I wont to hospi-'.;C',l :--£t1,r·boing G-i.Vcn a paper by -;:' polioe. ♦,11 0 Tho "paper" ho rcfors to is the PF 3 which W3.S ultiLk"'.to]3 tendered in court durin.J" tho tricl M ·E::icl.l.Pl. In tho second count the appollv.nt hon. lJcon oho.rGcd with tbroateninG violence c/s G9(2 )(b) of tho FcnrJ. Coclo, The cc..uso for tbis chro-go, 0S dcposod by ·foo coraple.innnt, is thr:h clurin{; the exhOllgc 1Jotwcen hitf a'llcl the c.ppcllr1.nt v..fter tho cllegod ~-ssOlllt wlrlch gave rise .,iiO tho first oom1t, the r..ccused "••• gn,ve tbroatonili:s words saying th2,J.; ho would kill me r~cl it wp,s no ( sio) his first title to ki..11 c>,S he we.a a soldio:r, Tho accused throatenod 1:10 with n. knife_.. IIo· s~cl that ho woulcl ldll mc •• J~ · '1:hoso words coulc1 bo of sicnificr:mcc, lmt o..s I will point out later, tho trial i3 a nullity. The tri2,l was ru:ljournGd 2..f·iiox t::o •testinoey of the conplcinunt beo:-.,two, n.s tho rooord of the proceod..i.nga· sJiows,. there 1-roro no Llorc witnesses t!.1P:.t dcy. This W0S 6th M..v; 1986. TJ.1e Oc'..SG w::-.s n.djom."llGd cgn.:i.n to June 20, 19015 becau.se, cc::.in, there wore no wi·t1ossos. Froo there onwo.rds tho trial c1J;'c..0Jocl on until it roached a stngocl when ·tl:o onso file was nowhoro .to bo soen ~s fron Ati.E,1J.st 15, 1986. It appo2xs tlmt t'.10 case file 1-rc..s ultioatoly found c..."lt1. it we..s 1Jrouc;ht to court ~mu 011 Scptenbar 12, 1986•.. •Tho nocuscd was not [',Wr.J:'8 of tJ.,...is dr-..to, l)Ut acoord.ine t'o tis o~ov.11cls of n.ppooJ., he had ill alollG' 11oon going -'lio t2:e Court clorks nak:i.ng inquiries cl)out tho fc/lio of his case. r...o cllo&es tho..t he was told to rooain 02.ln and that he woulcl h[',VG been noti+iod when the 0[',SG filo w~s found. Tlll.!JGs, took roiothor tu...-n when 011 7th October 1906 tho Prosecutor c,J?J)lioc1 for, rnd his preyer was n.cooptod, r-i.. Wc1.I'rant of o..rrost c1.s if -'Gho appell::int held jumpoc1 bml. Tho woxrnnt of c:rroot rooained in :f'oroo until 2,3l'd Ootou~, 19139 w).1011 -'Ghc Prosecutor c.locidod to olosc his case with tho t4stioo1zy- of ·i;\o corapliJinmt clono. Jud(;mont was futcl.ly delivered on 9th April, 1990. c..ftcr five cdjour.anantsi It is ru:1n.zinc th2,·i; 2.. ju.dgoant covering ono page coulcl h,.,vo taken five uonths hcforo baiz1<.--;; clelivo:roc1' Ile thn.t as it r.icy, tl:ere wns no evidence upon which tho appellant oo-cld b.::-..vo beon conVictcd on the first oount, Mor do I fi.i.td lrnr.fu.l justific::d;ion su.pportine conviction on the second oouat, ThGxe W<'..S c.,Toun~, tl:eroforo; upon 1-rJuo:1 tho Rdpu.blic docli.·•rnd to suppo:i:'t t:.loso co11victions. iUl it :C.f'J'" be soon fro□ the rocord of the procooaill[;s tho trin.l court · dispensed with the dcfonco of the 2.,ppelbnt •. Tho loc.rnod trinl M,1gistrdo, without stc..t~ why ho took th::-.t oourso of n.ction 1 convicted tho appel.lcnt - on tho test--.boriy of the conpleincnt, iUthoUGh ho docs not scy so, it n.p:)o~s ho relied on tho provisions of s.226(1) of Crininnl Fr.oceclllro ilCt~ 19D5, vlli.ch state, 2,s f'!:.X' c1.s tho s::-ne relate to the nnttor at h2ncl ns :f'ollow·s:- - 3 "S.226( 1 ). If .:-;li t~1G tinG or plncc to which fv.rtl:er ha,c.rine sl:£'11 "!)e ::,,cljournoa, tho nccusod parson shn1l not o.ppoor l)ci'oro t>.e court wbich s):.~i have nnc1o the order of c.,c~jo1.u,1.r.1ent, it sllcll lJo lnwf'ul for suoh oour!; to proceed witl;_ tho further ho:-...ri11c r.s if tho a.ccu.scd woro pre sont. ~ ,11 c-;. ·• 1· It will only be lc.;wful fol" ·lihc court to dispense with the nttem1r.noa of .:-.n c..cousac1 person if all tho r·oc.i.v~·or:iants set c1.om1 in s. 226( l) of t::e Ci-i:.1il1ol Prooccluro .Act have been conpliec'l wi. th first. That provision rGquiros Jvi1n.t w!-:.crc tho trial has oooracncod, like in tho cc,so under a.ppeal, the trial hc'I.SS- ( 1) to be i'.'..Cljour11Gd in tho prcsonoo of tho accused fo:r further ho .--.r:i.nc; (2) c.t r-, specified pl'.'.co end tine; (3) if, 011 ·l;ho ~v,,fo 11nd l)lncc to which honring wr-,s c".A:ljournod tho r:.ccuocd docs not e.,ppoax; (4) it is than, wcl only then, that the trial trill oontinuo without his prosonce 0 It is o:Jvious tb.a,t the trial ooux,t did not coopl;y with the statutory raC(\Jiz:qnon~ which hnvo 1)oen set d01-m in s.226( 1) of Crioinnl ProcodurG .'I.ct. Tho rGoord. ·of the prooeodings shows that tho r,ppollroit wa.s atton~ nll court 8djottrn.uont,· until Jul;v 21, 1986 wl:en tho court cd.jou.1'.1ed hee.l'inCT of this co.so to l~ust 15, l9l36. For ror,s011s which o.:rc not rooo1~c.1ed -~ho cc.so was brot1eb.t back to cQ'UJ:t 011 SoptGrabcr 12 1 1906, n.bout two nonths cfter tb.o lc\st "':djournnont on which the appollont was p:tosont. Fron thore on tho q)pGll,ont lost trc..ck of tho prooecdil1gs. U11dar those c:i.rcuriS·l;cno·os the trial court ov.£.:,·}~t not to hr.,vo docl.t with tho a,ppallr-.nt as thoUJh he 1010w why the c:1s0 could not bo :.102.l"d on 15th A'U[,'USt,- l9D6 ns am1oiu1cad in his .'0s011.00. I,n the result thG juu,er.1ont which was clolivcrod without his do:f'o1100 is a. nullity 'been.use it oontruvenes -'G:.1.0 l<'-W• I hereby quo.sh tho oonviotio11 011 each · count :-..nc1 I Mcordinc'1Y set c.sids ·'Gl1c sontonco 011 co.ch count. U11.loss, therefore, the r.ppollcnt is hold in pri.so11 on o.ccount of other lnwful nc.:'ctors, he shoulc1 ba sGt fraa forthwith. J .N.Mt..CKJJJJ A JUDGE 21/8/1990 21LD/jo Cornr.1: J.'L.1,0lmnja,. J • Ur. H._ctttp[', for Rospondc.nt Appollc.11tz In pGroons Ju.c1.[;·r1ont clelivorocl on 21/0/90