19750616 TZHC Mwanza

L IN TNZ HIGH C)U' ui TANZANIA 016 AT MWANZA APPELLATE JIJ1I3DICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO0 544 OF 1974 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO0 138 ...,OF 1974 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF MASWA DISTRICT AT 0 000000MASWA BEFORE A. MOHAMED Esq., 00 0 000 0 0000DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MASANJA s/o LUKA000.00000 0 0000000000000000 ................ APPELLANT (Original Accused) versus THE REPUBLIC. co o oo 00000 *0 •0 0000 00 000 00000000 00 0000 0 • .RESPONDENT 00 00 (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE: Cattle theft c/ss 268 and 265 of the Penal Code, Cap 0 16 of the Laws. J U D G M E N T MAGANGA, Ag. J.: The appellant was convicted of stealing cattle c/s 268 and 265 * of the Penal Code. He was found to have stolen two heads of cattle. It was proved in the trial court that on 28th April 1974 the complainant Selemani Romole (P.W.1) bought 78 cattle at an auction and he left the same in custody of his employees, who included the appel- lant, to drive them to his home. It was also proved that the employees divided themselves into two groups and the cattle were also divided in that manner. The appellant together with P.W06 had 20 cattle to take to the complainant's home. • It was further proved that on the way to the complainant's home tht appellant sold two heads of cattle, one each to POWO2 and P.W.4, on a pretext that the cattle could not walk and that he was authorised to sell such cattle. Severel witnesses deposed that they saw the appellant sale the cattle and receive money from POWO2 and P0W.4. The appellant in his unsworn statement stated that he was handed only 18 cattle and he never sold any of them. The trial magistrate believed P,W.2 and P,W.4 as well as those witnesses who were present when they bought the cattle and found it proved that it was the appellant who sold the two cattle to them. His finding was based on the evidence that the witnesses knew the appellant and the skins of the two cattle, which were produced in court, were identified by the complainant to be of the two missing cattle. In my view the trial court was justified in coming to that conclusion as the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming. P.W.l's evidence that he did not authorise the appellant to sell any of the cattlecoupled with the fact that the appellant did not remit to him the money he received for the cattle he sold conclusively proved theft of the cattle. His contention that he was wrongly convicted is therefore without substance. In the result this appeal is dismissed in its entirety. Delivered this 16th day of JUNE, 1975, R.OM'NG Mrs. Matove f',r the Republic.