MAPAMBANO ABIUD MICHAEL VERSUS REPUBLIC Draft Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DODOMA SUB REGISTRY AT DODOMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 18935 OF 2024 (Originating from Economic Case No 35 of the 2023 before the District Court of Manyoni) BETWEEN MAPAMBANO ABIUD @MICHAEL ………..…….…..……… APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ……………….……………………………….RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Date of last Order: 11/12/ 2024 Date of Judgment: 26/02/ 2025 LONGOPA, J.: The appellant stood charged of five counts of: Unlawful entry into a game reserve without permit contrary to section 15(1) and (2) of the Wildlife Conservation Act (WCA), Cap 283 R.E. 2022; unlawful possession of government trophy namely two horns and two ears of the buffalo worth TZS 4,697,313/= the property of the United Republic of Tanzania contrary to section 86(1) and (2)(b), (3)(a) and 111(a) of WCA read together with Paragraph 14 of the First Schedule to and section 57(1) and 60(2) of the Economic and Organized Crime Control Act (EOCCA), Cap 200 R.E. 2022; unlawful possession of weapon in a game reserve contrary to section 17(1) 1|Page and (2) and 111 of the WCA and sections 57(1) and 60(2) both of EOCCA; and unlawful possession of fire arm contrary to 20(1) (b) and (2) of the Firearms and Ammunitions Control Act No 2 of 2015 read together with Paragraph 31 of the First Schedule to and sections 57(1) and 60(2) of the EOCCA; and unlawful possession of ammunitions contrary to section 21(1)(b) of the Firearms and Ammunitions Control Act No 2 of 2015 read together with Paragraph 31 of the First Schedule to and sections 57(1) and 60(2) of the EOCCA. Upon hearing of both sides, the District Court of Manyoni found the appellant guilty, convicted him in all five counts and sentenced the appellant to pay fine of TZS 100,000/= or serve one-year jail term in case he fails for the 1st count; and 20 years imprisonment for all the remaining the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th counts and that all the sentences were to run concurrently. The appellant was aggrieved with the whole of the decision both conviction and sentence thus on 10th July 2024, the appellant instituted an appeal against both sentence and conviction by the following grounds, namely: 2|Page 1. That, the learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact by relying on the law technical without considering that the appellant is the lay man whereby he failure to cross examined PW 4. 2. That, PW4 in his evidence before the court he testify that he filled the certificate of seizure and was signed by the appellant but does not address the court who was present to certify that the appellant signed the said document. 3. That, the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by convicting the appellant while the chain of custody was improper according to the law. 4. That, the trial magistrate erred in law and in fact because the prosecution side does not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The parties appeared before this Court for oral hearing of the appeal on 11th December 2024. The appellant enjoyed the legal services of Mr. Cheapson Kidumage and Godwill Benda, learned advocates while the 3|Page respondent was represented by Mr. Francis Mwakifuna, learned State Attorney. It was Mr. Cheapson Kidumage, learned advocate for the appellant’s view that all the grounds of appeal argued jointly and generally all relate to failure to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. It was argued that in criminal cases it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that offence has been committed the offence. The duty is deemed to be discharged when the proof is that of beyond all reasonable doubts. Where there are doubts on the prosecution’s case then such reasonable doubts should be interpreted in the favour of accused person. This is the position of the law which has been emphasized by the superior courts of this country. For instance, in the cases of Nathaniel Alphonce Mapunda and Another versus the Republic [2006] TLR 395 and Mohamed Said Matula versus Republic [1995] TLR 3, the Court reiterated the duty of the prosecution to prove the case. It was stated by appellant that in the proceedings that there are a lot of reasonable doubts that were not addressed by the prosecution. For the first offence of unlawful entry in the game reserve without permit, the 4|Page proof was based on oral and sketch map of the scene of crime that was admitted as an Exhibit PE. 8. According to the appellant, Exhibit PE 8 does not contain the name of the appellant that would have connected the appellant with commission of the offence. The only available identification is the alleged Police Case File No MAN/IR/1184/ 2023. However, this number of the case does not exist in any record of the case that it resulted into the Economic Case No 35 of 2023. Further, it was asserted that no investigation officer who testified in court to show the findings of the case investigation results. As such, there is no evidence that connects the sketch map and the case whose decision is appealed against. It was noted that evidence of PW 4 did not state that the appellant herein was present at the scene of crime when the coordinates were taken or recorded in the Global Positioning System (GPS). Moreover, there was no evidence that PW 4 was handed over the GPS facility when they went to patrol on that date. In particular, there was no certification of authenticity of the sketch map as it was electronic evidence. It appears to have been generated by computer system but the date is inserted by hand. In the circumstances, the offence of being found 5|Page in game reserve/ unlawful entry into game reserve was tainted with reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant argued that the sketch map is an afterthought as all the aspects were done in single date namely arrest, arraignment to police, taking the coordinates of GPS, feeding the information on computer system and producing a sketch map. It raises doubts as the certification of authenticity of the electronic record is missing. The appellant cited a principle in the case of Godfrey Andilile Mwakilima versus Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 683/ 2021 [2024] TZCA 1072 (7 November 2024] that reiterated the need for certification of the authenticity of electronic documents, thus the offence of unlawful entry into game reserve without permission lacks evidence to support. The rest of the offences regarding being found in possession of ammunition, and fire arms, and Government trophy were not proved as the chain of custody is weak thus creating reasonable doubts. Exhibit PE. 4 which is record of chain of custody. The Title and remarks indicate therein “Kupatikana na Silaha bila Kibali” the named items were listed to include the muzzle loader, gun powder, 47 pieces of iron bearings (gololi), one knife and buffalo skull with two horns which are the government trophies 6|Page were also included. The case title does not refer to the Government Trophy rather than being found in possession of ammunition and fire arms. It was stated that the chain of custody is of the same date i.e. the ammunition being taken from the scene of crime on the same date for safe keeping/ Exhibit Keeper. Anything after the same were submitted to Exhibits Keeper is not reflected in the form of the chain custody including the valuation of the Government Trophy by PW 2 is not reflected in the chain of custody to have been handed over to the valuer who later on returned the same to the Exhibit Keeper. It was further stated that records do not indicate that the same items were taken to court and who took them for tendering into evidence. Thus, there is clear break of chain of custody that raises doubts that are the same items allegedly found in possession of the appellant before this Court. Further, oral evidence does not indicate identification that was proper on the government trophy. There was a need of written report or forensic report identifying the same as buffalo horns/ tusks. The experience alone was not enough. The witnesses are contradicting each other as PW 1 stated at page 12 of the proceedings that ears were long compared to 7|Page other animals while PW 2 at page 14 stated that the ears were short and thick/ fat ears. In the circumstances, these two witnesses have contradicting testimonies. It was the appellant’s submission that there ought to be laboratory or forensic tests on the same. There was nothing in oral testimony substantiating that the alleged items/ alleged government trophies were buffalo horns/tusks. In the circumstances of the case, there was nothing proving that the items were government trophies. In totality, the weaknesses are not minor and they go to the root of the case itself which would have been resolved through evidence that is cogent to allow the court to determine the matter while is versed with full evidence on the same. The Court considered the extrajudicial statement as corroborating the evidence that the appellant had committed the alleged offences. That extrajudicial statement is doubtful on two aspects: First, it did not comply with Honourable Chief Justice’s instructions to the letter. Exhibit PE 6 lacks one of the important aspects regarding time and date of the arrest of the accused person thus failure to adhere to the requirements then Exhibit PE 8|Page 6 be expunged from the record. Thus, this Exhibit be expunged. The case of Japhet Thadei Msigwa vs Republic, Criminal No 337 of 2008 [2011] TZCA 108 (1 July 2011) at page 10 of the Judgment reflects the importance of adherence with CJ’s instructions compliance. Also, it was appellant’s submission that the practice has been that extrajudicial statement arise from the cautioned statement from the police that would have been supplemented by the extrajudicial statement. Such cautioned statement is inexistent. On Preliminary Hearing, it was provided that the appellant was arrested, interrogated at police station, confessed through cautioned statement then taken to justice of peace to record the extrajudicial statement. As the cautioned statement was not tendered, the police officer who recorded cautioned statement was not called to testify in court thus making extrajudicial statement unsubstantiated that it was actually made. Failure to bring the cautioned statement raises doubts on the existence of the extrajudicial statement. It was the appellant’s prayer that this appeal be allowed as there as a lot of reasonable doubts on this case which makes the proof of the case against the appellant doubtful thus this court be pleased to quash the conviction, set aside sentence and set free the appellant. 9|Page Conversely, Mr. Francis Mwakifuna, learned State Attorney had a different view altogether. It was submitted by the respondent that that conviction and sentence be upheld as the prosecution managed to establish the case in all the counts which the appellant faced. It was stated that for the 1st offence of unlawful entry / being found in the game reserve without permit was proved by coordinates indicating boundaries of the game reserve. PW 5, a GPS expert, stated that the appellant was arrested within the coordinates as reflected in the sketch map contained the case number which was MAN/IR/1184/2023 as revealed in page 29 of the proceedings. Also, PW 4 who was the arresting officer stated to have arrested the accused with the Government trophies, ammunition and firearms. The seizure certificate was filled and tendered as Exhibit PE 7 at page 23 of the proceedings. The Exhibits tendered including Exhibits PE 7 and PE 8, the appellant did not object nor cross examine PW 5 thus appellant admitted the truthfulness of the evidence of those prosecution witnesses as stated in Nyerere Nyague vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No 67 of 2010, which reiterated that failure to cross examine acts as an estoppel to the accused to ask the court to disbelieve the evidence he failed to cross examine. 10 | P a g e The offence of unlawful entry into the game reserve was proved through the coordinates and the sketch map. This was corroborated by the evidence of PW 3 who recorded the extrajudicial statement in Exhibit PE 6, the appellant admitted to have been found in the game reserve and found in the possession of the Government trophies, ammunition and firearms. These evidence of PW 3 both oral and Exhibit PE. 6 was not objected. With regard to Government trophies, it was submitted that evidence of PW 5 stated was lucid on reading and interpretation of a sketch map. The recording/ reading of the sketch map through coordinates was done at the scene of crime. It was submitted that all the actions being done on the same day has nothing infringing any rights of the appellant. The arrest, seizure, taking of coordinates, feeding them into computer system and printing the sketch map were properly and correctly done. It was further reiterated that all prosecution witnesses referred to the case number. For instance, PW 1 at page 11 stated to have opened the file with that case number. PW 2 stated that during valuation, at page 14 of the proceedings, made the reference number to the same case file. PW 4 referred to it on page 23 when the seizure certificate was filled as well PW 5 named the case number at page 11 | P a g e 30 in Exhibit PE 8. The absence of the name of the appellant in the sketch map is not fatal as it is generated automatically. On chain of custody, it was submitted that the same was not broken as PW 1 is the one who tendered Exhibit PE 4, the Chain of Custody Form. He stated to have received the same from PW 4 and signed the Chain of Custody. The Valuation was done in the same Exhibit Room thus did not move from that room as the valuation as per PW 2’s evidence was done in the same room. The case of Issa Hassan Uki vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No 129 of 2017, where the Court stated that chain of custody evidence may be admitted even if there is break of chain of custody was cited to illustrate this point. According to the respondent, the exhibits were properly kept by the Exhibit Keeper thus it was not possible to exchange the same. On identification of the Government trophies, it was argued that PW 2 described the manner of identification on page 14 of the proceedings. PW 4 stated the manner of identification that skin was thick to prevent ticks. PW 3 testified how the extrajudicial statement was recorded by a magistrate. The appellant did not cross examine PW 3 regarding the evidence that he confessed. In the case of Juspin Daniel @ Sikwazwe 12 | P a g e versus the DPP, Criminal Appeal No 519 of 2019, the Court emphasized that failure to cross examine on important matter is an admission that such evidence reveals the truth or is acceptance of truth of the evidence of that witness. On discrepancies between PW 1 and PW 2, it is submitted that PW 1 is only an Exhibit Keeper while PW 2 is an expert as stated in page 14 of the proceedings as he stated the criteria for identification that the protruding horns which only buffalo has for defensive mechanisms as well as the ears were short and thick revealing that the same belong to buffalo. Regarding the extrajudicial statement, it was submitted that extrajudicial statement was recorded in fully compliance to the Chief Justice’s directives. All the mandatory questions were asked and response recorded as per Exhibit PE 6. In extrajudicial statement the appellant stated/admitted that on the date of arrest and the entry into game reserve thus there is nothing wanting in the extrajudicial statement. On absence of cautioned statement, the respondent submitted that there is no need of having both cautioned statement and extrajudicial statement as the extrajudicial statement is validly strong evidence as it is 13 | P a g e made voluntarily by the accused to admit/confess the commission of the offence. It was the respondent’s view that the prosecution managed to prove all the offences against the appellant as the witnesses and the documentary evidence/exhibits demonstrated that the offences were proved by the prosecution. As such, the appeal has no merits as the case was proved beyond all reasonable doubts thus it was prayed that conviction and sentence be upheld as the same was arrived at properly. In rejoinder, Mr. Kidumage reiterated that PW 5 did not go to the scene of the crime to read the GPS as that is not reflected in the evidence. He received the GPS from a ranger who was at the scene of crime thus it was reiterated that coordinates were taken in absence of the appellant. It was stated that there is no evidence that PW 1 handed over the GPS to PW 5 and also there is no evidence that he went with GPS at the game reserve. Further, on certificate of seizure, PW 1 stated that there were no independent witnesses on the filling of the certificate thus creating doubts. 14 | P a g e With regard Exhibit PE 8 which is an extrajudicial statement, the appellant emphasized that recording of extrajudicial statement has a total of eight steps which must be observed including the time and date of arrest. That is lacking in the extrajudicial statement thus the same is illegal and be expunged from the record of the Court. Also, it was reiterated that sketch map is not in the prescribed form including the endorsements that are to be entered to reflect the scene of crime thus all the weaknesses are crucial to the case as it disconnects the appellant from being there at the scene of crime. Furthermore, the case file number has no connection to the Economic Case No. 35 of 2023 and that there was no evidence that case file was the one resulting to that case. The investigation police officer was not called to testify in trial court and cautioned statement was not tendered. It was appellant’s view that regarding non-objection to tendering of exhibits by the appellant cannot be taken to be admission. The appellant objected the first three of the exhibits but the court overruled the same which made the appellant as lay person to not object all other later exhibits. It was submitted that in such circumstances failure to object it 15 | P a g e cannot amount to have agreed to the evidence thus the circumstances are different as appellant had no assistance of a lawyer. It was reiterated that on the Chain of custody and the expertise in identification, appellant is of the view that there was no valuation of the items as there is no signing in the chain of custody, thus there was break of the chain of custody. Also, there is no evidence that the same were taken to court thus the same did break. On identification expertise, it was submitted that both PW 1 and PW 2 are all Wildlife rangers but their evidence is different. A scientific report of the expert was necessary to clear the doubts on identification. That being totality of the rival submissions by the parties to this appeal, this court is enjoined to determine validity of the appeal or otherwise. The court has dispassionately considered the records available in the light of the grounds of appeal. The summary of evidence is as follows: It is on record that on 10/10/2023 PW 1, conservation range one Msongo Migweli stated to have received from one Longi Miswadi several items including one muzzle loader, a knife, two buffalo ears, two horns of buffalo attached with the 16 | P a g e skull head of buffalo, two bottles of gunpowder, 47 pieces of iron used as a muzzle loader bullet. Upon receipt PW 1 marked them as MAN/IR/1184/2023. PW 1 tendered the muzzle loader as Exhibit PE 1; two ears and two horns of buffalo collectively as Exhibit PE 2; a knife, 47 pieces of iron, and two bottles of gun powder as Exhibit PE 3 collectively; the chain of custody form as Exhibit PE 4. In cross-examination, PW 1 stated to have received the exhibits from Longi in presence of the appellant at around 16:00 hours. PW 2, Jonathan Musiba a Wildlife Officer testified that on 12/10/2023 he was assigned to identify and evaluate exhibit MAN/IR/1184/2023 kept by Msongo Migweli in Exhibit Room. The exhibits were availed to PW 2 who upon examination identified to be two ears of the buffalo and two horns of buffalo. According to PW 2, buffalo horns are having bosses protruding in front for defence purpose and it is only buffalo with such horns. Also, the skin on the head was thick to help buffalo from Tse tse flies and the ears were short and fat which indicated that they were buffalo ears. PW 2 evaluated that the buffalo was worth USD 1900 that was equivalent to TZS 4,693,313/= as per Bank of Tanzania exchange rate on material date and filled the Trophy Valuation Certificate in accordance with the Regulation 17 | P a g e and tendered the same as Exhibit PE 5. Also, PW 2 identified that Exhibit PE 2 collectively was the two ears of the buffalo and two horns of the buffalo attached to the skull which he examined, identified and valued on 12/10/2023 and they were marked by case number MAN/IR/1184/2023. PW 3, one Gideon Benard Kilaga, a Resident Magistrate at Manyoni Urban Primary Court stated that 11/10/2023 during afternoon hours he received one Mapambano Abiud@Michael who was brought by CPL Masoud for recording an extrajudicial statement. Upon completing all preliminaries, PW 3 recorded the statement of the appellant who confessed and such extrajudicial statement was tendered and admitted as Exhibit PE.6. PW 4 was one Longi Biswadi Serenda, a Wildlife Officer who testified that on 10/10/2023 in accompany of co-worker while on patrol at Kizigo Game Reserve arrested and interrogated one Mapambano Abiud. Upon such of the appellant, PW 4 found the appellant with a knife, muzzle loader, two bottles of gun powder, 47 pieces of iron used as muzzle loader bullets, two horns of buffalo and two ears of buffalo. PW 4 stated to have identified the horns, and ears to be of buffalo as the horns have bosses and the skin was silver with patterns found in buffalos. PW 4 filled the Certificate of Seizure which was signed voluntarily by the appellant and PW 18 | P a g e 4 while his co-worker, one Modestus Pius signed as a witness. PW 4 explained in evidence that there was no independent witness as the arrest was done within the Game reserve. The Seizure Certificate was tendered and admitted as Exhibit PE 7. It was a further PW 4’s evidence that appellant was supplied with a copy of the Seizure Certificate containing a title of being found in unlawful possession of weapons without permit in game reserve and that the case reference was MAN/IR/1184/2023 and all the items confiscated from the appellant were handed to the exhibit keeper by filling in chain of custody form. PW 4 identified Exhibit PE 4 to be the chain of custody record/form which he signed on 10/10/2023. Also, PW 4 identified Exhibits PE 1, PE 3, and PE 2 collectively. Further, PW 4 stated that on arrest of the appellant he took coordinates of the area using the GPS device that was working properly and coordinates were 36M 694750UTM 9270199 and on arrival at Manyoni PW 4 handed over the GPS device to Kreti Tarimo, a Wildlife Officer for preparation of the map. On cross-examination, PW 4 stated to have arrested the appellant around 10:00 hours to 12 hours but he does not remember clothing appellant was putting on that material date. 19 | P a g e PW 5, Kreti Vitalis Tarimo, Wildlife officer testified that on 10/10/2023 at the evening hours was handed over and received a GPS device from one Longi Beswadi with information concerning the arrest done during routine patrols as the matter was reported to police with case reference MAN/IR/1184/2023. The coordinates recorded on GPS device read 36M 694750UTM 9270199 and using the software arc GPS extracted the information from the GPS device that was working properly. PW 5, drew a map and the same was tendered and admitted as Exhibit PE 8. On the other hand, DW 1 Mapambano Abiud Michael testified that on 10/10/2023 he was he went to his farm carrying an axe and machete and at around 10:30 hours while returning home met two motorcycles which stopped him and asked him where he came from at that time, arrested him allegedly to have came from cutting trees in game reserve. At the Game reserve camp where DW 1 was taken, it was DW 1’s evidence that he was handed over with a gun, tortured him to extract information on illegal hunters and poachers and took the appellant to police station at Manyoni at around 18:00 hours. In cross-examination, DW 1 admitted that he was arrested alone and no any other peasants who were clearing their farms on material date were arrested. DW 1 admitted that he had no scars 20 | P a g e whatsoever to substantiate alleged torture. Furthermore, DW 1 reiterated that he has no grudges against PW 3, or any other prosecution’s witnesses and that he did not object tendering of certificate of seizure. That was the evidence on record in totality. Having summarised the available evidence on record, it is pertinent to address issues necessary for the determination of the appeal. The first one is lamentation that trial court erred to rely on legal technicalities on failure to cross-examine as the appellant was a lay person. The parties had rivalry submission on this aspect. It is on evidence that prosecution’s evidence can be grouped into two groups with respect to failure to cross examine witnesses. The first category is the prosecution’s evidence that was never challenged at all. This entails evidence of PW 2, PW 3, and PW 5. Nothing in evidence of those three witnesses was touched. On the second category, the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 4 was challenged by cross examination. A close scrutiny on the cross examination reveals that for PW 1, the only issue questioned were timing of receipt of confiscated and seized items from the arresting office and in whose 21 | P a g e presence. For PW 4, the only aspects questioned on time of arrest of the appellant and type of clothing that appellant had put on in that material date of arrest. It is a settled principle of law that failure to cross-examine on material evidence has always taken to be admission of that particular evidence. In the case of Martin Jacob @ Mlila vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 447 (11 June 2024) (TANZLII), at pages 15-16, the Court of Appeal noted that: It is on record that the prosecution did not even cross examine the defence witnesses. As the law stands now, failure to cross examine on an important aspect means admission. See: Nyerere Nyague v. Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 67 of (2010) [2012] TZCA 103 (21 May 2012 TANZLII). In the circumstances of this appeal, we are constrained to conclude that, the defence evidence was admitted by the prosecution as true testimony of facts. The evidence of PW 2, PW 3, and PW 5 in totality had effect of establishing that the nature, characteristics of and value of the government 22 | P a g e trophy, admission by the appellant to have committed the offences he stood charged in an extra judicial statement and that he was actually arrested within the game reserve. On the second limb of failure to cross examine, it is on record that issues that were not cross -examined for PW 1 and PW 4 were so incriminating on the appellant. The evidence of PW 1 was to the effect that contents of forming Exhibits PE 1, PE 2, PE 3 and PE 4 were found in possession of the appellant. On the other hand, evidence of PW 4 had effect of cementing the arrest of the appellant in the game reserve, confiscation and seizure of all the items contained in Exhibits PE1, PE 2, PE 3 and PE 4 collectively. As the matters that were not cross-examined go to the root of the prosecution’s case, it is obvious that failure to cross examine on the same has implicated the appellant fully to the commission of the offence he stood charged. This principle was illustratively demonstrated in the case of Gift Briton @Mwakasunga and Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1258 (11 December 2024) (TANZLII), at pages 13-14, the Court observed that: 23 | P a g e We say so alive to what the Court said in Zakaria Jackson Magayo v. Republic [2021] TZCA 207, TANZLII for the proposition that, failure to cross examine a witness can only be adverse if it relates to incriminating evidence. In that decision, the Court subscribed to a decision of the High Court in Kwiga Masa v. Samweli Mtubatwa [1989] T.L.R. 103 in which it stated: “... A failure to cross- examine is merely a consideration to be weighed up with all other factors in the case in deciding the issue of truthfulness or otherwise of the unchallenged evidence. The failure does not necessarily prevent the court from accepting the version of the omitting party on the point. The witness' story may be so improbable, vague or contradictory that the court would be justified to reject it, notwithstanding the opposite party's failure to challenge it during cross-examination...” Indeed, this Court is fully guided that failure to cross examine is only material where the failure touched on incriminating evidence of the opponent party that had implication on the case against a party who fails 24 | P a g e to cross-examine. As this court has demonstrated, all evidence related to the ingredients of the offences for which the appellant stood charged were not cross examined at all. This court cannot subscribe to the appellant version of story that appellant being a lay person should have been exonerated from that termed legal technicality. It is considered view of this court that failure to cross-examine on important aspects should not be considered as a legal technicality. It is an estoppel on a party who fails to raise it at an appropriate time leaving the evidence to remain intact on record but later on brings it as an afterthought. For a court to entertain the appellant’s assertion that failure to cross examine the witnesses on material evidence is a legal technicality would be doing injustice to the parties and reinventing the wheel as the law is well settled on that aspect. Certainly, this 1st ground of appeal is destitute of merits and it is overruled. Seizure and absence of independent witness to witness certificate of seizure is another aspect that is complained of by the appellant. It was submitted by the appellant that though PW 4 filled the certificate of seizure 25 | P a g e and the same signed by the appellant, the certificate fell short of the requirement to have an independent witness. The respondent refuted that there were no any weaknesses in that respect. To underscore the question of seizure certificate, it is important to restate that certificate of seizure is a creation of the law and in particular section 38(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 R.E. 2022 which is squarely applicable to the instant appeal. That relevant provision states that: 38(3) Where anything is seized in pursuance of the powers conferred by subsection (1) the officer seizing the thing shall issue a receipt acknowledging the seizure of that thing, being the signature of the owner or occupier of the premises or his near relative or other person for the time being in possession or control of the premises, and the signature of witnesses to the search, if any. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania has illustratively guided that issuance of receipt acknowledging seizure is only important where there is no certificate of seizure. The certificate of seizure is the evidence of 26 | P a g e acknowledgement that a particular item was confiscated and seized by a particular law enforcement officer. It a settled position of the law in our jurisdiction that where Certificate of Seizure is prepared and signed by the accused person such certificate serves the purpose of the receipt of acknowledgment. In the case of Shabani Ally Athuman vs The Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 192 (19 March 2024), at page 18, the Court of Appeal stated that: Further, we are of the strong view that, by signing a certificate of seizure, the appellant admitted to be found in possession of the government trophy. Given that circumstance, we find that the omission to issue a receipt was not fatal. A similar legal position had been enunciated in Papaa Olesikaladai @ Lendemu & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2020) [2023] TZCA 51 (20 February 2023) (TANZLII), at pages 13-14, where the Court of Appeal stated that: 27 | P a g e We agree with Ms. Madikenya that the complaint for non- issuance of a receipt will have no place in cases where a certificate of seizure is issued. This stance is fairly settled in our jurisdiction. We discussed this position at some considerable length in Gitabeka Giyaya v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2020 (unreported), a judgment we rendered on 28.12.2022. In that appeal, we relied on a number of previous decisions including Ramadhan Idd Mchafu v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2019 Abdalah Said Mwingereza v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2013 (both unreported) and Matata Nassoro and Another (supra) to underscore the point that where, like here, a certificate of seizure is issued and is signed by the accused person, the same constitutes evidence even without a receipt. It is lucid from the precedents above regarding the role of seizure certificate where the appellant signed the same. It is good evidence in law against the appellant/accused where that person signed such certificate of seizure. 28 | P a g e However, in the instant appeal the complaint is not that appellant did not sign the seizure certificate nor that acknowledgement receipt was not issued but absence of independent witnesses to certify that the appellant was found in possession of the items tendered as Exhibits PE 1, PE 2, PE 3 and PE 4 collectively. It is on record that PW 4 testified to the effect that appellant voluntarily signed the seizure certificate upon being arrested in a game reserve and the items found in his possession were seized. At pages 22 to 23 of the proceedings of trial court PW 4 stated that appellant voluntarily signed the certificate of seizure. It was also signed by PW 4 as a seizing/arresting officer and one Modestus Pius Conservation ranger who accompanied PW 4 in the game patrol on that day. According to PW 4, the reasons for having no independent witnesses was occasioned by the fact that arrest was done in the game reserve where no other persons /civilians were present. Indeed, the principle in Jibril Okash Mohamed vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 2017) [2021] TZCA 13 (11 February 2021) (TANZLII), at pages 39-40, is illustrative where the Court of Appeal reiterated that: 29 | P a g e It is an obvious fact that an independent witness is important because he is able to provide independent evidence. However, for that requirement to be absolute and indispensable, it should be backed by law. In the present case, the learned trial judge discussed sections 48(2)(c)(vii) of the DCEA and 38(3) of the CPA and found that the former does not imperatively provide for the need of an independent witness while the later requires an independent witness to sign the seizure certificate if present. That is the legal position. Closely examined, it is apparent that section 48(2)(c)(vii) of DCEA in no uncertain terms does not require the signature by an independent witness. Instead, it requires the report on the seized thing be filled in the observation form set out in the schedule to the Act, that is Form No. DCEA 003. In the present case, the report on the seized mirungi was filled in Form No. DCEA 003 (exhibit P1). That form shows that witnesses to the seizure and the executing officer have to sign but does not show that there should be an 30 | P a g e independent witness. Moreover, that provision imposes a duty on the arresting officer to issue a receipt. Ms. Sekule readily admitted that no receipt was issued. We however don't think that such an anomaly affects the substance of the seizure certificate. The omission or contravention is minor and, legally speaking, cannot invalidate the seizure certificate or affect its admissibility or even cause it to be expunged from the record. According this principle in cited case, an independent witness under the provision of section 38(3) of the CPA is only necessary where the same is present. There are circumstances in which seizure is done where there are no civilians, such absence of independent witness does not vitiate the validity of the seizure certificate. The most important aspect is that both the appellant/accused and the seizing officer must sign the same. The law categorically uses the term “if present” with regard to independent witness in signing a seizure certificate to provide a leeway in circumstances where such independent witness is not available. There is nothing in section 38(3) of the CPA that can be impliedly or explicitly interpreted to mean that 31 | P a g e without independent witness’s signature there cannot be any valid seizure certificate made. Indeed, seizure certificate as Exhibit PE 7 is one of the testimonies on record that were never challenged in its admissibility nor cross examination. It remains the unchallenged water tight evidence on record. At this juncture, this court is inclined to find that 2nd ground of appeal is also devoid of merits thus overruled. The third aspect is on the chain of custody whereas the appellant argued forcefully that chain of custody was broken and is not fully supported to warrant conviction for four counts the appellant stood charged save for the first count of unlawful entry into a game reserve which is not related to chain of custody. The respondent rebuffed the allegation of broken chain of custody and reiterated that it is on record that Exhibit PE 4 was tendered to substantiate documentation of the stages through which the seized items underwent from the time of seizure to tendering the same in court. The respondent cited the principle in the case of Issa Hassan Uki vs Republic (supra) to reiterate the position that even where there is 32 | P a g e break of chain of custody in terms of documentation, the court is entitled to consider oral account of the same. It is correct that establishing chain of custody is vital in proving the existence of seized items forming part of the offence. The chain of custody is intended to serve a purpose of authentication that it is the same item that was seized which is tendered before a court of law. The importance of establishing a chain of custody was restated recently in Nassib Abubakar Mwazyega @ Ras vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 576 (18 July 2024) (TANZLII), at pages 28-29, where the Court of Appeal of Tanzania had this to say: There is no gainsaying that, establishment of chain of custody is of mighty significance, and many of our decisions point to the fact that the rationale behind this salutary requirement is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime - see: Paulo Maduka & 4 Others v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2007 [2009] T7CA 69 (28 October 2009, TANZLII). This position was reiterated in Zainabu Nassor @ Zena v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 2015 33 | P a g e (unreported) in which the rationale for establishing the chain of custody was held to be: “To show a reasonable possibility that the item that is finally exhibited in court as evidence has not been tampered with along its way to the court.” On perusal of the records in the instant appeal, there are two sets of evidence with regard to chain of custody. The first set of evidence is that of the Chain of Custody Form that was tendered, admitted and marked as Exhibit PE 4. In Exhibit PE 4, the contents reflect the following: one, date of seizure is 10/10/ 2023 at Singida region and such seizure was done by Longi Biswardi Salenda. Two, the accused is one Mapambano Abiud who was found in Kizigo Game Reserve. Three, the same is marked and labeled in Exhibit PE 4 as Case Number MAN/ IR/ 1184 of 2023. Four, the case title indicates that “Kupatikana na Silaha bila Kubali” and the description of the properties seized, Exhibit PE 4 lists five items: one muzzle loader, two horns and two ears of buffalo, 47 iron pieces used as muzzle loader bullets, a knife, and two bottles of guns powder. Five, on movement of the seized items, Exhibit PE 4 reveals that the seized items originated from Mapambano Abiud who released them to Longi Biswardi Salenda in person. 34 | P a g e One Longi Bisward Salenda acknowledged to have received the items in person and took them to Manyoni in person. The items were received by Masongo Meigweri who acknowledge to have received them in person. The second set of evidence is that of an oral account of witnesses. Three witnesses testified with regard to the chain of custody. PW 4 testified to have found appellant in the game reserve on 10/10/2023 with all the items listed in Exhibit PE 4. It was PW 4 who seized such items from the appellant and filled the seizure certificate thereat which was signed by both the appellant and PW 4 as the seizing officer. PW 4 stated to have handed over the items to Exhibit Keeper one Msongo Migweli and he identified well Exhibit PE 4 that had been tendered already. PW 1 testified to the effect that around evening hours he was handed over the exhibits namely one muzzle loader, a knife, two buffalo horns and two buffalo ears, two bottles of gun powder and 47 pieces of iron used as a muzzle loader bullets. According to PW 1, these items were labelled carefully with the case number to distinguish them from other items. PW 1 signed the chain of custody form and kept the exhibits in the Exhibits room. All these items were tendered by PW 1 as Exhibits PE 1 (one muzzle loader), PE 2 (two buffalo ears and two buffalo horns), PE 3(47 iron pieces as muzzle loader 35 | P a g e bullets, a knife and two bottles of gunpowder collectively) and PE 4 (Chain of Custody Certificate/record). PW 2 stated to have visited the Exhibits room on 12/10/2023 where he requested PW 1 to show him exhibit labelled MAN/IR/1184/2023 for identification and valuation. According to PW 2, the items were shown to him whereas he identified the nature of Government trophy as two ears of the buffalo and two horns of buffalo on their characteristics and features found on the same. It is this court’s firm observation that totality of first set and second set of evidence which was not objected by the appellant concluded that a chain of custody was established as a through account of the receipt, manner of identification and dealing with the items seized from the appellant at Kizigo Game Reserve was provided for in the prosecution’s evidence. This court is guided by the principle in Chacha Jeremiah Murimi & Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 551 of 2015) [2019] TZCA 52 (4 April 2019), at pages 23-24, where the Court of Appeal reiterated on chain of custody that: 36 | P a g e In establishing chain of custody, we are convinced that the most accurate method is on documentation as stated in Paulo Maduka and Others vs. R., Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2007 and followed in Makoye Samwel @ Kashinje and Kashindye Bundala, Criminal Appeal No. 32 OF 2014 cases (both unreported). However, documentation will not be the only requirement in dealing with exhibits. An exhibit will not fail the test merely because there was no documentation. Other factors have to be looked at depending on the prevailing circumstances in every particular case. For instance, in cases relating to items which cannot change hands easily and therefore not easy to tamper with, the principle laid down in Paulo Maduka (supra) would be relaxed. According to this position of law, chain of custody may be proved by either documentary evidence showing unbroken series of events regarding such item or exhibit. In cases where chain of custody is not broken such evidence makes the exhibits admitted legally acceptable and valid. 37 | P a g e Coupled with the fact that both oral and documentary evidence regarding chain of custody was not seriously cross examined to dent it by creating reasonable doubts, the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 4 sufficiently established the chain of custody in the instant case. Thus, this court is not hesitant to dispose 3rd ground of appeal as it was preferred without any iota of merits in it. The 3rd ground therefore is overruled. The fourth ground of appeal is on standard of proof. The appellant argued that there was no proof the case to the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubts. The appellant premised the lamentation on several items including the weakness of Exhibit PE 6 (Extrajudicial statement) for not adhering to the Chief Justice’s directives on manner of recording of the same, the unreliability of Exhibit PE 8 (sketch map) as part of electronic evidence and absence of evidence that PW 4 was handed over a GPS device when going for patrol, lack of proper identification leading to contradiction of evidence between PW 2 and PW 4 on the description of government trophy, and absence of the investigation officer to testify in court thus there is nothing on record connecting the case file MAN/IR/1184/2024 with Economic Case No 35 of 2023 for which the appellant stood charged, convicted and sentenced. 38 | P a g e It is important to acknowledge at the outset that principles that appellant’s counsel stated and the cases cited on the standard of proof are indeed reflecting a correct legal position in this jurisdiction. It is a duty of the prosecution to prove the case to the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubts and that where reasonable doubts exist then the same should be interpreted in favour of the accused/appellant herein. This Court is bound by those principles as they are well settled. The first limb on this last ground is on complaints based on the extrajudicial statement. The appellant’s submission was to the effect that extrajudicial statement had two main limitations. One, that it had not complied with the Chief Justice’s directives on the manner of recording the same thus it should be expunged from record. Two, that there is no cautioned statement tendered thus extrajudicial statement cannot stand on its own. Such averments were opposed by the counsel for the respondent who reiterated that there was nothing on record infringing the rights of the appellant as the recording of extrajudicial statement was proper and in accordance with prescription of the law. It was respondent’s view that extrajudicial statement and cautioned statement are two independent 39 | P a g e categories of statements. Extrajudicial statement does not depend on existence of cautioned statement. It is correct legal position in Tanzania that admissibility of extrajudicial statement depends on the strict compliance with the Chief Justice’s instructions on recording the extrajudicial statements. This position was reiterated in Juma Tagambaga vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2022) [2024] TZCA 1171 (2 December 2024) (TANZLII), at pages 9-10, the Court of Appeal illustratively stated that: It is a matter that is regulated by the Chief Justice's Instructions, and this Court has accentuated, many a time, that applicability of these instructions is imperative, underscoring the settled position that these instructions operate cumulatively. Failure to adhere to any of those means that the statement bred out of such failure is discrepant and no evidential value can be attached to it. One of such prescriptions is that which requires the Justice of the Peace to ask the confessor if he was ready to make his confession on his free will. We underscored this aspect in the case of Japhet Thadei Msigwa (supra) in which it 40 | P a g e was held as follows: “So, when Justices of the Peace are recording confessions of persons in the custody of the police, they must follow the Chief Justice's Instructions to the letter. The section is couched in mandatory terms. Before the Justice of the Peace records the confession of such person, he must make sure that all eight steps enumerated therein are observed. The Justice of the Peace ought to observe, inter alia, the following: (i) The time and date of his arrest; (ii) The place he was arrested; (iii) The place he slept before the date he was brought to him; (iv) Where any person by threat or promise or violence has persuaded him to give the statement; (v) Whether he really wishes to make the statement on his own free will; (vi) That if he [makes] a statement, the same may be used as evidence against him. We think the need to observe the Chief Justice's Instructions [is] twofold. One, if the suspect decided to give such statement he should be aware of the implications involved. Two, it will enable the trial Court to 41 | P a g e know the surrounding circumstances under which the statement was taken and decide whether or it was given voluntarily. In our case, the Justice of the Peace merely stated that "he observed the appellant who had no bruises and that he was not tortured" That was not enough. The Justice of the Peace ought to observe all steps enumerated in the Chief Justice Instructions. Since that was not done, the evidence of PW6 is inadmissible. We expunge Exhibit P6 from the record…” Upon thorough perusal of Exhibit PE 6 that is available on record, it is an informed view of this court that record reveals that all the prerequisites of recording extrajudicial statement were complied with in recording the statement of the appellant. It is on record that prior to recording of the statement of the appellant the justice of peace dealt with all the preliminary prerequisites by questioning the appellant and recording response thereon. It was from the willingness of the appellant to record the statement free of any inducements that made PW 3 to record such statement which was tendered, admitted and marked as Exhibit PE 6. 42 | P a g e It is such strict compliance to the set standards in recording extrajudicial statements that made the trial court to rely on the extrajudicial statement to support the other evidence in finding the guilty of the appellant. Even if this Exhibit PE 6 would have been expunged from record as appellant wished, the position of law is lucid that oral testimony on record remains intact and can serve the purpose. This was the decision in Zheng Zhi Chao vs Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 240 (8 June 2021) (TANZLII), at pages 20-21, the Court of Appeal stated that: Nevertheless, we agree with Ms. Gwaltu that even if the said exhibits are expunged from the record, the oral evidence of the respective witnesses who tendered them in court can sufficiently prove facts contained in the expunged documents. See the cases of Saganda Saganda Kasanzu v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2019 (unreported), Huang Qin & Another (supra) and Emmanuel Mwaluko Kanyusi and 4 Others (supra). Specifically, in all these cases after expunging 43 | P a g e the certificate of seizure and trophy valuation certificate which were not read out, the Court relied on the oral evidence of those prosecution witnesses who proved the contents of both expunged exhibits. Likewise, in the case at hand, we are settled in our mind that even after expunging the said exhibits from the record, the remaining evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW8 has sufficiently proved the contents of the said exhibits and proved that the appellant was found in unlawful possession of government trophies in his pocket. Evidence of PW 3 was not challenged at all in cross examination by the appellant. It remained intact on record that appellant made an admission on commission of the offences he stood charged. In law, this was the best evidence as held in the case of Chande Zuber Ngayaga & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2020) [2022] TZCA 122 (18 March 2022) (TANZLII), at page 13, the Court of Appeal stated that: It is settled that an accused person who confesses to a crime is the best witness. 44 | P a g e The second limb is on lack of proper identification of the government trophy hence contradiction of evidence between PW 2 and PW 4. It was contended by the appellant that in this case experience alone was not sufficient to warrant proper identification and valuation of the government trophy. Given that the evidence of PW 2 differed from that of PW 4 on the description of the government trophy, it was pertinent for the prosecution to tender a forensic evidence on laboratory tests of the trophy to ascertain that it belonged to a buffalo. As such, it was appellant’s submission that in the circumstances there was no proof of the case in absence of proper identification. On the other hand, the respondent reiterated that there was no contradiction in evidence of two witnesses. On record, PW 4 testified that he managed to identify the two ears and two horns to belong to buffalo because it is buffalo only who have bosses and protruding horns of the nature the appellant was found with. Also, the ears had silver colour and pattern which buffalo has. It was PW 4’s evidence that he was trained at College of African Wildlife Management -Mweka and has experience on the types of wild animals. It was PW 2’s evidence that two horns belonged to a buffalo as he identified by looking at the boss which has protruding in front. According to 45 | P a g e PW 2, it is only buffalo with horns protruding in front and used for defence. Also, PW 2 identified thick skin at the forehead that helps buffalo to protect itself from Tsetse flies. The ears were short and fat which indicated that they are buffalo ears. There common theme in evidence of PW 2 and PW 4 is that the horns were protruding in front and it has boss which is only found in buffalos. I am convinced that there was a proper description of the government trophy in the circumstances of the case. The description of the Government Trophy was reiterated in Marwa Chacha Gekondo vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2020) [2024] TZCA 539 (10 July 2024) (TANZLII), at pages 11-13, the Court stated that: Quite obviously, this is not what is expected of an expert. Expert findings are based on analysis of data or facts and the findings are well reasoned. An expert has, therefore, to provide the criteria and material for adjudging situations. This should be reflected on the reasons they give to support their findings so as to assist the court to make own judgment by observing or comparing the criteria given and the real thing for which the opinion is given (See The 46 | P a g e DPP vs Shida Manyama @ Seleman Mabuba, Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2012 (unreported). A final finding is, however, made by the court as his are mere opinions not binding the courts. We would add here that where criteria are given and are well explained, such evidence (opinion) should not be easily ignored by the court but reasons should be given (See Saidi Mwamwindi vs R [1972] HCD n. 212 at page 249). In discussing the position expert opinion has in the administration of justice, a statement by Lord President Cooper in the case of Davie v. Edinburgh Magistrates, 1953 S. C. 34 at page 40 was accepted by the Court in the case of The DPP vs Shida Manyama @ Seleman Mabuba, (supra) as providing a proper elaboration of the duty of an expert that: - "To furnish the court with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusion so as to enable the court to form its own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proven in evidence." Based on the above requirement, an expert is not expected to rush and give a finding without elaborating the 47 | P a g e basis of his conclusion. Reasons for his findings are paramount in making his findings worthy it. Both PW 2 and PW 4 provide similar criteria of identification of the buffalo horns and skins/ ears. Both stated about the characteristics that buffalo have different from other animals in terms of horns in appearance and other features. Further, PW 2 was the one who made valuation and tendered Exhibit PE 5 which was the valuation of trophy certificate. In PW 2’s oral evidence he stated that he is Wildlife Officer at Tanzania Wildlife Conservation Authority (TAWA) Central Zone in Manyoni. This is also reflected in Exhibit PE 5 whereas PW 2 designation is reflected as Wildlife Officer. This was a competent person to identify and conduct valuation of the government trophy in accordance with the law in Tanzania. Regulation 4 of the Wildlife Conservation (Valuation of Trophies) Regulations, 2012 GN No 207 of 16th June 2012 requires that Trophy Valuation Certificate to filled by Director of Wildlife or Wildlife Officer. Totality of evidence of PW 2 and PW 4 do not reflect any discrepancies as complained by the appellant. It is settled law that not every contradiction in evidence goes to the root of the case. Some of the 48 | P a g e contradictions are minor and of no effect to the case. In Zheng Zhi Chao vs Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 240 (8 June 2021) (TANZLII), at pages 17-18, Court observed that: Starting with the first ground on alleged inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, we deem it necessary to reiterate that the law regarding contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence is settled. That, contradictions by any particular witness or among witnesses cannot be avoided in any particular case - see Dickson Elia Nsamba Shapwata v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2007 (unreported). In that case, this Court observed that regularly in all trials, normal contradictions or discrepancies occur in the testimonies of the witnesses due to normal errors of observation, or errors in memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence of the incident. The Court added that, a material contradiction or discrepancy is that which is not normal and not expected of a normal person, and that 49 | P a g e courts have to determine the category to which a contradiction, discrepancy or inconsistency could be characterized. In the premises, the Court held that minor contradictions, discrepancies or inconsistencies which do not go to the root of the case for the prosecution, cannot be a ground upon which the evidence can be discounted and that they do not affect the credibility of a party's case. In the case at hand, having considered the discrepancies complained of, we do not, with respect, consider them to be material to the extent of affecting the credibility and reliability of PW2, PW6 and PW8. As it has been demonstrated that evidence of PW2 and PW 4 were consistent without any identifiable discrepancies. That being the case, the lamentation in this limb is what some decisions have referred to as figment of imagination. The third limb relates to failure to call an investigation officer leading to disconnection between case file MAN/IR/1184/2023 and the Economic Case No 35 of 2023. This limb is not difficult to determine. First, the law in 50 | P a g e particular section 143 of the Evidence Act does not require a specific number of witnesses to prove the case. Second, it is on record that evidence of PW 1, PW 2, and PW 4 testimonies are clear on the items seized, kept in exhibit room and identified during valuation to be the same. Such evidence is supported by documentary evidence in Exhibits PE 1, PE 2, PE 3, PE 4, PW 5, and PE 7 which were properly admitted by adhering to all the stages of admission of documentary evidence. The fourth and last limb on this fourth ground of appeal relates to sketch map authenticity. In Godfrey Andilile Mwakitalima vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1072 (7 November 2024) (TANZLII), at page 18, the Court of Appeal stated that: Such was the law as it stood at the time of the trial which gave rise to this appeal, but later, The Legal Sector Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, No. 11 of 2023 was promulgated and section 30 amended section 18 (2) by deleting merely the words "admissibility and" appearing in the opening phase. Otherwise, the rest of the provisions remains the same, hence the only change is those considerations to be made in subsection (2) of section 18 51 | P a g e of ETA, in relation to the determination of evidential weight to be accorded to a data message and not admissibility anymore. The principle in this case is that electronic evidence would only be subjected to reliability, and authenticity only in respect of determination of the evidential value of the evidence. Also, a similar position was taken in the case of Euro Games Technology Ltd vs Evergrande Investment Develop Co. Ltd (Starcity Casino) (Commercial Case No. 74 of 2023) [2024] TZHCComD 37 (26 March 2024) (TANZLII), at page 9, where the High Court Commercial Division (Hon. Agatho, J. (as he then was)) observed that: It means that from the time the amendment came into force the data messages sought to be tendered in evidence may be admitted without subjecting them to reliability requirements prior to its admission into evidence. They will be subjected to reliability tests during weighing or evaluation of evidence and not at the admission stage. That is the task of the court not the witness. In lieu of the amendment cited it is thus not mandatory to do reliability 52 | P a g e tests at admission stage. It may be good to do so but it is not mandatory. It is on record that testimonies of PW 4 and PW 5 are relevant to the matter at hand. PW 4 stated that upon arrest of the appellant he used the GPS device to record the coordinates and that GPS device was working properly in a good condition. The coordinates recorded were 36M 694750UTM 9270199 and on arrival at Manyoni PW 4 handed over the GPS device to Kreti Tarimo, a Wildlife Officer for preparation of the map. Further, PW 5 testified in detailed manner that he received the GPS device from PW 4, extracted the coordinates and used Software arc GIS to extract from GPS. PW 5 subjected the extracted coordinates to his computer to make a map and both the computer and GPS were in good working conditions. This sketch map was tendered as Exhibit PE. 8 and it is one of the sets of evidence that was not objected and never cross examined. In the circumstances, the testimonies of PW 4 and PW 5 left nothing to be desired in respect of reliability of the sketch map. The lamentation by the appellant that there is no evidence on record that PW 4 was handed over with GPS device in the morning he left for patrol at the game reserve 53 | P a g e has no merits whatsoever. There are two witnesses whose evidence on recording the coordinates on GPS device, extraction of the coordinates information, transferring them to the computer and preparation of the map using GIS arc software was never challenged. The appellant cannot be heard at this juncture complaining to something he admitted to be the truth by not cross examining on the same. Having analysed every ground of appeal in detailed manner, this court does not find any difficult in stating the position on whether the case was proved to the required standard. The case against the appellant was proved beyond all reasonable doubts. It is on record that oral evidence of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 together with Exhibits PE 1, PE 2, PE 3, PE 4, PE 5, PE 6, PE 7 and PE 8 categorically establish all the ingredients of the offences that appellant stood charged. The evidence left no iota of doubt that the appellant was arrested within the game reserve in violation of the law and committed all other counts therein. The reasons for stating so are clear. First, the evidence of the prosecution was to strong, consistent and watertight to warrant conviction. Second, the defence evidence did not dent any doubts in the evidence of the prosecution. Third, prosecution evidence went 54 | P a g e unchallenged by the accused person/the appellant thus challenging it at this stage appear to be an afterthought. This court is guided by a well-established principle that where the prosecution establishes the case beyond reasonable doubt the court shall proceed to convict and sentence. For instance, in Samson Patrick @ Thomas vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 1294 (19 December 2024) (TANZLII), at pages 12-13, the Court noted that: Finally, in determining the complaint that the lower courts did not consider that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, this Court when defining the term "beyond reasonable doubt" in Magendo Paul & Another v. Republic [1993] T.L.R. 219 had this to say: “For a case to be taken to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt its evidence must be strong against the accused person as to leave a remote possibility in his favour which can easily be dismissed.” It is settled that, the duty and standard of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt is universal in all criminal trials and the duty never shifts to the accused. 55 | P a g e See for instance, Matibya Ng'habi v. Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 651 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 34 (14 February 2024; TanzLII). Being guided by this principle, it is certainly clear that there was proof of the case to the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecution managed to discharge such duty as required by the law. Simply, the fourth ground of appeal is destitute of merits thus naturally crumbles. In the light of the foregoing, this appeal is delinquent of merits. It is hereby dismissed in its entirety. DATED at DODOMA this 26th day of February 2025. E.E. LONGOPA JUDGE 26/02/2025. 56 | P a g e