Criminal Appeal No

IN THE HIjF COUHP OF IU IZ A W IA AT TABORA APPELATE JURISDICTION (Tabora ’R e g is tr y ) (HO) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 91 OF 1935 ( ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 35 OP 1985 OP THE DISTRICT COURT OP. KASULU DISTRICT AT KASULU Before: T. A. Mchu^juko Esq..* Senior D is t r ic t M agistrate) LUNANDA. MAHURUTI. . . . . . . . . . . . ......................................... .. APPELLANT •versus THE REPUBLIC. ..................................................... .................... - ............. RESPONDENT . JUDGEMENT MAINA, J. Th«. a p p e ll a n t , Lunanda M ahuruti, was c o n v i c t e d by th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a t K asulu o f b u rg la ry and s t e a l i n g . He was se n te n ce d t o f i v e y « a r s im prisonm ent in th e f i r s t cou nt and tw e lv e months im prisonm ent in th e secon d co u n t, to be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y .' He i s a p p e a lin g to t h i s C o u rt. There was e v id e n ce by P ^ .l Benjamin T o s i r i th a t a f t e r a quarrel w ith the a p p e lla n t in a b a r, th ey s e p a r a te d and Benjam in went t o r e p o r t the m a tte r . Later^when he went t o h i s h ou se he found th e & ouse had been brok en ini;o and a m a tre ss , a b la n k e t, a bedsheerf;, p i l l o w s and ca sh s h s .3 *000/= had been s t o l e n . .He s u s p e c te d th e a p p e lla n t and r e p o r t e d a c c o r d in g ly to P o lic e * ,!7hen the a p p e l l a n t s h ou se was se a rch e d the com plainant was n ot p r e s e n t . P o lic e seized a m a tress w hich they fo u n d i n th e h o u se . They sent i t to •fche P o l i c e S ta t io n and th e com plain ant was c a l l e d and he id e n t ifie d it sa y in g th a t !,i t was a ls o ea ten by c o ck ro a ch e s "., 'The a p p e lla n t1S e v id e n ce , was th a t th e m atress b e lo n g e d t o him . He c a lle d two w it n e s s e s , Kasa and Mwano, who were f a m i l i a r w ith the matress end they su p p orted the a p p e l l a n t 's e v id e n c e . The c r u c i a l p o in t i n t h i s appeal i s on th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the m ertress. T h is Court has s a id on s e v e r a l o c c a s io n s th a t a complainant must g iv e d e s c r i p t i o n o f h i s s t o l e n p r o p e r t y and point o u t.marks o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n when he r e p o r t s th e t h e f t . In t h is case, the com plain ant sim ply r e p o r t e d the t h e f t of h is matress and when -P o lice went t o th e a p p e l l a n t 's h o u se , they se ize d a m a tress they found i n th e a p p e l l a n t 's h o u se , sen t i t to P o lic e S t a t io n and showed i t t o the com plain ant who s a id i t was h is property. P1? . 4 Musa s a id that he was p r e s e n t when P o l i c e searched th e a p p e l l a n t 's h ou se and one P o l i c e O f f i c e r s a id that the m a tre ss was n o t th e one which they were lo o k in g f o r . That 2 in d i c a t e s th a t th ey sim ply t-oois; the msrtrr^se boosm©®- "Wrey icu r.d i t in th e a p p e l l a n t 's h o u se . They were n ot su re w hether i t was th e s t o l e n one because tiro com plain ant had n ot g iv e n a d e s c r i p t i o n o r marks o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n b e f o r e the se a r c h was c o n d u cte d . A m atree3 i s an a r t i c l e o f ooraraon uso- and so -evidence -of i d e n t i f i ­ c a t i o n i s c r u c i a l to s u s t a in a c o n v i c t i o n . That e v id o n c e mu3t e s t a b l i s h beyond r e a s o n a b le doubt that the p r o p e r ty b e lo n g s t o th e co m p la in a n t. The f a c t th a t the m atress was t o r n on i t s s id e s and th a t i t was ea ten by co ck ro a ch e s was n o t s u f f i c i e n t i d e n t i ­ f i c a t i o n e v id e n c e . The com plain an t m entioned th e se marks a f t e r he .was shown the m a tress by the P o l i c e . In v ie w o f t h i s , i t can­ n o t be s a id th a t the p r o s e c u t io n p rov ed i t s c a s e beyond re a s o n a b le d ou b t. The a p p e lla n t d id n o t have th e burden to p ro v e h i s i n ­ n ocen ce. The p r o s e c u t io n f a i l e d to p ro v e the a p p e l l a n t 's g u i l t beyond r e a s o n a b le d ou bt. This appeal i s a llo w e d . The c o n v i c t i o n i s quashed and the se n te n c e i s s o t a s i d e . The a p p e lla n t must be d is c h a r g e d from cu sto d y fo r t h w it h u n le s s he i s o th e r w is e la w f u lly h e ld . 4/V CXA 7. J. MAINii, JUDGE. At TABQRA 22' April* 1986 Mussa* S ta te a t t o r n e y , f o r the R ep u blic A p p e lla n t a b se n t.