19801008 TZHC Dar es Salaam1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA 4 - AT D.AH ES SALAAM APPELLATE JUUISDICTION H.C. cRrnINAL kP. NO 190 9 191 OF 1979 ORIGINAL CRflVIINAL CASE NO. 53 OF 1979 OF THE DISTRICT CO1J[T OF KILOMBERO. DISTRICT AT IFAKARA Before M.J. IJUNG'OMBE, Esq., DISTRICT MAGISTRATE lvi .ARY ALLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . I • • APPELLANT versus THE REPUBLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HESPONDENT CHARGE: Being in unlawful possession of Government trophy c/s 67 (1)(2) (a) of the widlife conservation Act No, 12 of 1974. 11JDGEIVLENT This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The two appellants in this case Semion Yonasi and Mary Ally, who are alschusband and wife were on 25th June, 1979 convicted of being in unlawful possession of Government trophy c/s 67 (1) (2) (a) of the Wildlife Conservation Act No. 12 of 1974 and sentenced to three years imprisonment each. The prosecution case was that PV5 No, B.9299 Cpl. Athumani was on 3rd Ipril, 1979 on duty at Kiberege Railway Station, And while there PW2 Salum Saidi a person he knew before the incident came to the station with the two appellants and Salum Saidi bought. tickets for the appellants for a train which was to travel or the following day. Salum Saidi left the station with the two appellants. PW5 was also on duty at the station on 4th April, 1979 and again while at the station Salum Saidi came with the appellants. This time the husband was carrying a travelling hand bag and the wife was carrying a ba&et which was wrapped with a kitenge cloth. The train duly arrived at the Station and when time ce for embarking on the train PW4 William Miho, the station Master and DW5 Cpl. Athumani began oheking the passengers tickets and luggage. This appeared to be a routine checking —2- before embarking on a train. The passengers had to stand close to their lugage and vvait for their turn to be checked by the Station Master and the Policeman on duty. ?VV4 & 5 checked the passengers as usual but when they got near the two appellants the appellants began moving slowly away from their luggage. They were asked to stop moving 0 but they instead look to their heels and disappeard.. The luggage of the., appellants was then opened and was found to contain the elephant tusks the subject of these proceedings. Then PW5 remembered that te two appellants were in both occasions that he saw them at the station in the company of Salum Saidi a person he knew. He contacted Salum Saidi and with his help the appellants were traced at the home of the 1st appellant!s fathor. They wore then arrested and charged with the offence. Further investigation revealed that the appellants had visited the touses of their relatives PW1 Christian Ngalali and PW2 Salum Saidi with their luggage before finally going to the Railway Station. In their defence the appellants denied having been at the Railway Station and claimed that they had in the material time gone to visit a sick child at the home of the .1st appellants father. They also denied ownership of the incriminating luggage. The trial Court believed the prosecution case and convicted them. I find that there was over whelming evidence against the appellants justifying their conviction. Their appeal is therefore dismissed in its entirety.. Delivered in open Court this 8th Day of October, 1980. / (M!.tP. K JIJDGE 8th October, 1980