20141015 TZHC Mwanza

,: ' I 'I' "i / ~ '°'1 I IN THE HIGH·COURT OF'TANZANIA , I• ATMWANZA· .• •.j . ' HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2013 .. ; ·., I ;•; ri. :•.• •·" : .0 ; .. •. (Original Criminal Case No. 201 of 2012 frorii the District Gourt of Ukerewe .· · District -Uketewe) . · · · : . , ...- at : I I ~ • • MAYALA RAMADHANI ................... ~ ....................... ~ .. ~ •. ~APP'ELLANT . • • ! : •· ,:· • -~ ,·

VERSUS • ' THE REPUBLIC ■■■■■■■ ,,: ■■■■■■ ■■ e-■ '°" ,: • • •, • • • 111 • • ,• •, :',, ■~ ■ i ■ ■■· ■ ~ ■■■ 1111 ■ 1 ■ ,,,.. ■■■ a ■■■ :n,11 ■ RESPQNDNT ~ . • '•,• ' ;: • • • ··1 . • ,,•' . >) ·, C •':••,;, . .. '· ' I , ' ·. .:JUDGMENT:.· 1 ·· ·:: BUKUKU, J.: . •.: .' ,:· The appellant and four others_ were jointly charged with the ·offence·. of shop breaking and stealing contrary to section 296 (1) and 265 of the . ' . ' ' " ' ... ';..:~. . . '· Penal Code Cap· 16 R.E. 2002,· before the District Cou'rt of Ukerewe ·at ·: ' . Ukerewe (henceforth the trial court). At ;the end of the tlay, only three of . • I I , . . . them including., the appellant were..found ·. . • . ., .. . ·,- 9:lJilty· . . and, convicted I as cha_rged. . ··:. • • f • •( The other two were acquitted. :The :· ..appeUant and the. two others were·"- •' • • • •1 • I , I • 1 sentenced to serve seven -years 'i('nprisd"nment ·and .on -'top·: of that, they • _, • I . . • • •• • , • • • .•. • . • . I . ·• • , •~ • • : ' • ' : . , were ordered to c:ompensate_.the comp la1riant T.shs. 950,2(l0/= the value ,·: ' : ;<: 1 :· / ' . I , .. of the stolen properties. Aggri~ved 1:. by t~e co,nvjction ·~nd ·seDtence, :the ' 1 ' . ·.' ;•. .':· ... - .. .-;t-:,,~ I . appellant has come to this court claiffilng· his innocence. · ,• I.' .~ •, . . . ... , . . I - ' ,, .. I ' ', ' the ·- appellant : . ·has filed a

-.illernorand;jm . ·cf appeal cont.aining three ,. ' . :9tou:1ds of appeaL ·In· t_he. first ground· _he is. complaining that, the trial mag:s~rate erted:in :law by convicting hirn.based on the evidence of PW1-4 .! I ·whlch_is p~reiy hearsay.and· suspi.~ious., ~~_he second is.that, the prosecution hrJs fzH-~d tc- ·prove- its case beyond ret-~onable doubt because it failed to ,· tender as evidence the receipts of buying the stolen properties to show .. ',\~1· I • :/.':.-·'o.:~. -~·.· ~:·:at t'.-:ey belong to the complaina.ntf anc! lastly, that the trial magistrate . ·'· • • ' \ " I stred _In. !a~v by convicting the appellant _basing on circumstantial evidence. . . .. 7o a~gue the appeal, the appelia;-:t appeared before me in person ••; '., . ., , and vvas unrepiesented. In addition to his grounds of appeal, the appellant submitted that; .on 16th ' February 2012 during nl9ht time, while away, th~ ' .' .·.. p·olice went into his house and ~orlducted a··search. On 18th Febr'uary 2012, ' .• . he was. ar~ested and taken to the police'.,;~nere he was beaten and forced td· i:o~;ess the theft that had taken piace on i 4 December 2012 at Bitiriti th ' . vlEage, Ukerewe District, Mwanza Reg~on, and on 21 st February 2012 he was 2rraig~ed ·in court, charged and seri~2h:ced ~o serve a jail term of · sever) years. In total, the · appellant dlsassociated himself with the Ii co_!TiiT-:issicr'.;

a·; the crime. . 2 ' ,· . 1 1~·-.:t. I .· - _- . For the respondent Republic~· ·,. ..,. . . . 1 Mr. Gbadiah Kaju·ngu, · Learned State ' • i. •.~ : -~•; A~:•;, 't1_·:. 'j _.· -♦ .• i ~• ' .'.. · ,. ':•i: · -•' .. _.··. : Attorney ·appeared. He out righ_tly supported the appeal for. reasons I _sl;1all ... , · ,·.·.:.. · ,., ·~ ~·,~- ' r ' : y ,~~ •♦~- 1.· •. f .. ~~d-., ,: .'~:>~:.~.,. •:t·1.. show subsequently. To start with,· r .consider ·,it/ ap~~opria·te. to 9iVe·'; the' ' .~Ssen.ti'~t •' • I .' ", • ' • h-· u· background to the',. ......appeal. '·. ·•~: ·;" ~r:f :-'.~ ,-.f;)f{t:- : ;;. > ; t.~. ~ ,,; ~ . ..· '-"' . ··., . ~' . . ... . . 1·. . •.. ,. .. ,,:::; :· ;.:, ·:,:.. ·,' th On the night Of 14 December,. '201 2 bandits broke into· 1 tt1e·';shop pf . '.~-"· . . .. ,- .. ·:<. ·.! ':': . . ·: ;: .·. _· ' ·_: >... ;). -:•: ·\'.:'; '. :,· one Fredinand Lukansola (PWl) at Bitiriti; vii lag~ Ukerewe District,: M1vvanza . ~, >· · . . . .. · . ': ,,,. . .. : j ,. . . . . .. ~,, ::..: ,/:· -:~, ~<·. /._··>( .... Region, and stole one weighing machine valued at T.shs. 120;000/~, 50 kg · _· .. ;. :, of sugar valu~d .at T.shs. 100,000/=,: ·1 crate df beer .valued·/at.'-T.shs. ;_ . . !". . .. . .. · ,·. . .··.·. · . ;- ·. ' ...·. ::·:. ,· :: .· .· _:· ' . . . I 36,000/=, 50kg of rice ·valued . . at. l.shs; I 5,400/=, 20 litres . . of-'.cooking . . •.. oil .· · . . . . ·. . . ; ' . .

' .. . . :'. . .. ' • ·.·. . . . t valued at T.shs. 60,000/=,· .-.84 ~j¢ces of youchers ·'(TIGO/ ·--AIRTE~, ~ .: VODACOM) ~11. valued at T.shs. 42,000/=:=, 30 packets ·of cigarette valued'.at, ·, . . . j . . . . . . . . ; . . . T.shs. 90,000/=, 6 dozens of :;lotion-::valued at T.shs .. 28,200/=-r: ~alfta· _:"., . .· .. . .· .-'·. . .. !. . : . . . . . . . . . : ; ·, . ::: . . . . carton of exercise books valued ·at 15,0.00/=fbubble gum·vaJue9:.atT_1shs.· -. 10,0~~/=, .15 dozens Of· batteries, makeSi1iger Valued ai:'r.shs.-71;000/;=; ,, . ·.. . . I .. . .. 2 dozens of glycerin valued at T.-shs.:114,000/=, two and. a half:dot~ns:\of .. · 1 . Nqbody. . witnes$ed. .. . ·, the ._theft,. . . . . . ,• but . the :appellant . and his co-accused . ' ,. were ~rrested ra_ryq~m!y .on di.v~r$e ~.ates. .. :. • • :._ j ' •• , In h_is respective defence1 the ·appellant .denied ·any· responsibility. He described . how. and ,.when . : . he.\/lfas ·. . _a.rrest~d.. some . .. . , . . . ' .. . dpys . after '~ . the .incident at . . . Narnaleba . are~,. . how . ~. ' he _WqS taken : . . ..to the _po~:ce . . : . . . . and badly tortured ~ '.• . and on ' - , 21 st December,. 2012 arraigned i11 court. On .his part, Mr. Kajungu, Learned State Attorney who supported the appeal ·aig~ed that, the :triai court heavily relled on hearsay evidence since nobody saw the commission of the crime. He also averred

that, what PW2 . . testified in court· was not corroborated since there was no caution statement tendered in court to show tt.at the appellant was .named by one, Richard Mujiba .. According to Mr.' Kajung~,· the judgment of the trial court did not _anaiyse how the appellant was connected to th~ crime, contrary to secton 312 ·of the Crirnina( Procedure· Act. In the final analysis, it is. Mr. Kajui!gu's submission that; the ·prosecu~ic;·: had failed to prov~ its case as ' I • ·,·•. •• . .· ·.' ' • , required by_ lav1; hence prayed the appeal to be allowed. In convicting the appellant and his .accomplices, the trial magistrate '/. . . heavily relied on the evidence of PWl to PW4. 4 i'i'.;;-'i t· '\ -: . According to PW1·, t~e . compl?)inant,. qn. tre .. morning· ,of,·: 14t,h · . "'.•. :: .< ~~~~,•/ ... t \ ' : •• :• .", ,··- • ,._ 1· .~+.'. ,! "·~:.t ,\/:. tr;•·;~.r.:{·.-.·;; . , . 1 . . . ' December, 2012 at abo.ut 7.30 in th~.. ·mqrniflg~. he ~r.rived . .~·t J.:, \ . his.··-tqffiq~. at }-:C-- :: .... t·, . . ,.~ .•t .... ·. ~1t .•~ .. ', ,' .• ... . ' ..... );" .. ~ :/ ·~._-,·,t ; t ., • • •• ,' •,' f 1 ~ -w , ... , ., ,,; ,,, , " f • • ;.~·.,·: Moments later, he was.informed·''~y his _wife thr_ough_the ph~ne·abput th~ . . ··-: ·_.:···:·_·. ,>·•·;.- <··_·:· ·.·;·:-. ·:·.:·.,,/: '(,?':1::-:··:. theft at his shop. He we_nt to the ·scene and found a good number of good.s , - . ·,•

._·: '. .. . . . . ,· ';• _:, ..... ,>.~. :./·:~);;::'-<(,~· :\; stolen in the shop and all padlocks \Aiere cut off. PW1 told onlookers who . . . •• . . " . : • ... ··t _1,i ·: ~\ •,• ::-··. , ... ,, . ~·. : ·, " : . . . . . t •• _: •· were at the scene that, on 13th Dec~mber, 2012 he m~t .one Richard (1 st · 1' · '._~·'· . ., _-:}:. ·~-·...-;J.'·/'!'''(~'-.f~~·--. accused) at about 19.00. hours ill possession of tvvo short iro'r1 bars, arid ,. I• :•·•, ,,'' was looking for a buyer. He also s·aid'that one of the sympatt,iserstold 'him .i• • . •' 0 h O • •,. . • ~ ~ . . :·, • ' • .. that, the said Richard was h~ard saying. ···.j' \ .. 11 • ••• •'• •••••• .leo Katekista wam~mkomesha ..... ;.. duka ,1ie"}i ; , I , late wamemuibia .... ngoja .wamemkomesha kwa. vile Katekista huwa anajidai sa19::···\ ...,........ " .. report the matter. to the .police. On.16th . Dece'm.ber,>20{2 j'.{ic:hc1·r.c;L .VJa,s · . • • • - .··' I • • .. ·,_. '·,.~ 1t~ ·, •·, /,;·.·. ~-~;~.--,_,.~,.~,' ~ . ~. '. . . arrested by the police. sfmilarlY,, on",tlie(f~teful day/,peo'pl~ found,_~some : '. • • • • .•-: n ' •• \ '. --- ' • • ' • .._,-. -~ ·.,_-_ :·1-·-~~! .ri ", :,!S;·~~~·{/·:!~·-~::: • • •'• • • ' • :, ~ : :,:. • • • I • •• ' • • • 0 sandals near the 4th accused hous~ .. 'Lat~r,· ·.it was, revealed th~t;~-t~.e sakJ . • -' • , • . ·•_.f '. -"; ·•.• ~ •• ,., '. ·,',. /:-:°···.-~·#··:"',:;f. -·

';-,,_ shoes belonged to the second a·ccu'se8, · o~e ·. Kamcinjo ·Madaraka .. PW.~ ~ .. 4· · '.• ·: ~ : : ,.. • • , .. ... 4 '1 •. · · • ; • I • • - ,. • h ... " '~ ....... ,I•. • ~ fu,rth.~r_ narrated that, people\:Verit'to. s~arch. for the seco9d :a·ccus~~ '~this·.· , :-· ~ ::' .. -~;¥• - . . ... ~-. house. Upon arrival, they met .hi~"father:\Nh~ . fi~st:.sa,;d his ~oh; - . . . ;;a~·fiot -~f . . ' ·s ' ' . . ' home . since he. had gone . I to the Isiancis. . . /lSter. the arresting officer insisted in seajching the se.cond accused' insfde tile house, bis father called the second accused thus:-·. •~ ..... Kamonje toka nje ni wewe u/ijitakia/ nenda · ukajibu.. "- T;ie second accused was then arrested. According to PW1, he was calied _by the police one day and. the appell~r;t and three other accused v,is;·e p:-esent. The accused were ' ·, i;;ter:-ogated -~y the police, a_nd t_he first ar:d second accused admitted to ' ..... ',• ·• . ' : .. ' . .. ' :~ave comr.1itted . the offence. . According. ta f1e second accused his bicycle '. ,. . ' ' was used to transport the stolen goods, wh;ch were stored at a place· directed by the appellant, and that ·the .-·vvho!f plan was engineered by the ',i . . . ·.: ;. fo,µr~h accused, one Boniface Nyalwamb~ra. 'F\iVl,, Lubanda Kitambali also testfied. He told the trial court that, on 16th December, 2012 at 20.00 hours, he. me~ ?W\¥1 who told him

about the theft. On 1'jth December~ PWi and other ;.iiltla 'people started to look for the suspects. He narrated_. hovv they. we~t t9 the second accused house, 6 !-~•'. . • . ~' ' I ' how he insisted on searching the second· accused ·ins\de J.his1 h9u~e,. an_d \ .: ·. . ~ ._ '"'r.:•: . , '._._.-~·.•.:-,~· ~~-;·:,_. · -~~-~-:-!-~ . / ·: . ,,,,}._•,.ii -._i .. \.:.:'- ,~_4,:J l'., •. !'i.)!i!. ~v:-,··.::'· how his father responded. ·, · ·· :· · ·'.·= .-.<~ ;1 r:,>·.: ::·:··· -.· :. •:.-,. ~~,w,•r r~~i,~'-,:ft/.-:· 1f: According to PW2, on 18th Dece~ix~r, 2012, ~t around ~18~:,aO,;qq~rs. . . . ··-. -.. ... .. :. •. . . they managed to arrest the appellant. While arresting h.im, ;it i~ alleged that .•• ; • • • ··: ....-: ,.: :. 1 ! '•'. . . . . : . ,_·_..·..:,,· .. _1''. '.". ·. • . , he uttered the following words:- ~ '. "Kwa nini unatukamata sisi ·tu? Mbona hao weogine :'° · • • ~- :-1 • .... : • t .~ '• .- ··,,., ,.,.. , f. I ~ ..;, • ·~: !' ,-"~..,_"I:• ' unawaacha ?" I ... • I ... • I ,·.• accused was arrested. 1th . . December,. 2012 . .he . . st9rted . investig~tif]g . . .. . ' th~ ca~e. . .tog~ther:-,1.w,i,t~·~Wei;::~r .. . . . .. . . . .. . ' .~- . . . . ' . " . ' , ·. ~ ' _,· 1 Janet. On 20 th December, 2012, PW4 interrogated the second acc~sed • • • JfJf,·i.(.:.. _ .. •: •• - . .,. - j : • • • ,, - ..~ • ~ ~ ;, ,"'!i,... _t ,\4 •, .. , ,r- , I ~ t<}"".f -:.1»

.rt'•r"'''t: ,•• I i',·•, ," :•; ., ·, · who admitted to have committed the ·offeiilce. • ""°:'>,,f;'. ~ .• / .•. , .. ' : , ;- •I • I • circumstantial evidence. It· is trite:thatr before a cowrt';'can-··convicton .:the ~···:, • • - I ~ ; • • 1 basis . of circumstantial evidence; . . . _.· it .t,·must . . . be satisfied , . ·_ .that, ' the· . . ' 1 .. circumstan(:es leads: to the only reasonab1e iriference that the accused took part in the tommi'ssion f>fthe· crime he· stands charged with. It must lead to an "irre_slstible conclusion that :he :,committed· the crime. Each of the inculpatory facts;or-·set ·of -inculp-~trn:V'facts, adduced against an accused cons!Gcieq .·singly, mu.sf justify . the .dr~whg of t~e inferen~e that the ·" .~ . . ' accus_ed · c~mmitted the crime . .in question. Likewise, when considered • • ; ; • . ' • ~ ' I • t • •• • • • • •. • •' • •. .• • ; I togetr!¢r, must justify the dravvinb of such :nfei·ence (see:-· Protas John · · . I · i . ~{~to-~ota ~::td Another V.R [1992] Yl.R 51, also, Hassan Fadhili V. R~IJl~!.i-;t:-;;c [1994] TlR 89, where the ~ouit of Appeal held that, "in order ~o gto:;nci' corivlction .on ~ircumstantial evider.ce; it must be incapable of ·.. :-r:ore that-r one interpretation". 1, . There is. no dispute that, the prosecution . case against. the appellant . .. .';,~ ' -was exc!usively . based on circumstantiai . . evidence which,

simply stated, ' ' . j • . . . means evidence that relies on the inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact rather than direct evidence. In. other' words, it is proof of the existence· or nor. existence . of an alleged ·or disputed fact, based on reasoning and not on personal khowledge or obsen,ation., I am aware of the fact that,: some people consider circumstantial eviden~e as weak and unreliable:. In .rrty view, I . find that to be a .8 . . . . . misconception. (See: Samson Dani~l·v.R [1934] I EACA. 15~ and R. V . . ....... - ~·~·.--. ~ ·_,'•.:',..~ . :·;·... : . 0. ~. · ..... ~.~,,,..·".'J:·' ~:.~_.·!',...:.~i~~.\_f .• ~··· ..... · ,,; . . . Sa bud in Mera Ii and U~eda{i Me.rali (UG), Crirra'inal Appeal No. ,.220 + ; ' ~-, ~ • ,,~."\~.· \'. \:·,,r.-1\ ! : '-.. . '··~ ·; •_~ " . ~~~ '- ~-.·· . ."l, ~~...... f:~l .. ?:~:, of 1963 (unreported). The mer~ fact that the evide·nce _is circumstantial, ,, • ··;:_~. ·;' ",.,;,.,~·. ,1'1;•' . . . _; .. ~ . ·:,'· .. ·.•. -: ~\" :'";···· ~.,il',,\ --:.~'- is far from saying that the prosecution case IS w·eak beca,use Circumstantial ._ ' J' ," ~ :• ,: ~ ,, : • • :,~ • • ., 'I.. ' • I/""_.' -~·/, • ~... ~ .. :•: I ' eyidence is sometimes the best evi.der1~e. it ·is the evidence- of surround!fl.9 · * '.:. ~ •· • .r :,' . . . ~:. ·.. ..: \;,. l ~.·~~,' "~· .. ·:~·:. ·. :\·t·tf-.~:•~f: _,· ~ . circumstances which, by

undesigned~_-c·cinddence, ·is·· capabfe ·of :proving ··a ~ ~ ·.'.. • .. :.. 1 ,· \> ,: . . . . ,.'i ,·• :.7. .~···.·. ,:", :. .:,.;~· -,.~..\~.·~~. ,:·.,;I.. proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. I wish to stres~ that, wher~.. . , . . · ~·:;. ' . ~ . . ' •· ._;·, ' . ':~?;i'.~. > .·.· ~-. ~ :' the court may have consid~red the appropriate principles. of !aw go¥er:oing.· · . . . .. . . ., ;;'. ': ' . ·, . ~ ,;◄ ,,>·--<'· ',:,)(' ?:,·~(~:-\~;:(: reliability on such evidence, conviction cannot be casually or lightly fault~d_; •: - . .. ; . :· ;. . . . . . . :.~· . ,: .·;:.~t.t.~f(I(~i: ,:•;> . In the present case,. the: prosec.ution banked · ,heavily:(:-;011,,i{he . ,- .••·,:,'.: '~--, ?··. . . 1~·> ·. :.:.;; ··•',;i'· testimonies of PWl, PW2 and P_W3~ which suggested that-th~ :a,pJ~f~l.1:aqt). ·· . . .' ' ' -~. . . . and .two others committed the offence .. It is not disputed ·that~ it is the · <. ·· . . ,. "".~"-,...,~. . . ~:. ; ··~, ;.'_. \l'i!f-~'.~, '.\ second accused, Kamonjo, who mentioned the appellant. Unfortunately, nb . w _. '," t,. f' ·.... I~• ~. ~~.('.'. ,.•·(11·,, ;1:tl' • ~ caution statements were tendered. in. court-to prove that ailegatio.n... ·: ... .: · ,. ,. . :~ . . ' . . ' . } ~.} (.. ; ' -~:·• ; '." ' : .._,.... ~ ' The question needi~g an -~nswei :j5:,\va·s i' prbved' . beyohd-·r.ea·sonab!e . ~- ~ doubt that the appellant took."pait in ·th~ crime

com·mftted? i thin.k ,With due respect, no. I am of the s~ttl~d View that/apah frcirn the h~~1rsa/~viciery9e; .- . ·i ',,i the prosecution needed to go·:the ·extra' mile to ·e~tabUsh that (ndeed the • • 4 ·> . .... . ~ ~-.<·. ,·.; ·...... ,·.: ··-~ ·. ··. . p appellant participated in th~ <:rime; It 'is only'·the ' . , .. ., ' ' . ieto·n·a :•atcus'ecL\l\lhQ , ',·- .• , i~·-:• ~ ':...,.: _,, .•. ·····-)~~-~- '• ,<, ,• • • . .,. .. ,., ·.-.. · ., ;;,· .",' ,. "·,: ... ,. named . the appei_lant in his. confession. Th.€. fact that when the accused.was. ,·,.• · being apprehended he asked why he •_\:\las being· apprehended alone and f •• ' ' •• • i • •. •~· •• • ' \..' • ' • . . • not the otht:rs, does nqt in .itself lmpl,icats: f~i~tn. Mere evidence was required ' ·- . ,., ,_ ... .. . . : :..,, - , ;.·- ,,·, ' • ' ·, ,', .. ' ,·. , ' . . . . I •.: •• • . . · The 9ther issue is the allegation. of; torture. In his defence, the • '. •.:_ •·• • • • • ;, I 1, . . ,·· t . . . a~pslii:nt dairned that followii::g his ariest,.. _he was tortured by the police. . . i Respond'i1ig to this allega~ion, in his, judgment at page 11 the trial ,,_· ....... , . . m~gi$.t,"ate had this to say: '• ·. i:_ •• ~-. I ani $atisfied up to this stage that, the a/legation of police·, 'torture was made in -~eiy general terms. The ·parti~;,~;s·asto ihe nature ~(the torture/ the time and :_. :·,"' . . .place .it

.was . inflicted, :. and the . polic~ officer who ,·< ..· .... •• ... · ' . . ;_- •••'_:_. perpetrated it, were ,1oi:"given: ': .. · . \ ;' ·, '·, .· . VV:th due:~ rt'spect, I think t~e iaw is .v~i-~; dear on this. Once there is '/, .... - o;· irntes'dga;tion in order to as~eitain the s2ld ~j!egation. This was not done, ' • ; •:· .,· -~•.. ·-... , .. l.. •. ,,.. ". ! ,:• • .. ; ;, , - , . •. • . •. and ther·-e-f~ref oneca·n ·cohciud~ that the;-Ei ~}as no fair trial. : . ...... , .,.;:. :~>1l _. - -.: : ' . 10 I,. . ··, I . . . In the light of the. abov~, I am.con~in_ced that, the_ nature and qyality O • I , • p ' ~, • • f , ., t j ~ ~ :,. !: t I f • ( of the evidence relied upon. by the" trial: court in convicting the· 9ppeUant, •. f " i • ,' j • • •• : • I • • ,. e 1 ,i , .',. I • 'I -4.-, •, ·. .• If.•;; t' ,merit.my intervention .. I have demonstrated hereinabove that, the strands · • _. ~ _ • • • • .' -: • • • • ·, • • . , ..... ,.,. _ ~ ► ,·' _ • : ••.• ~. : .1 -.:- i .,:·~.• ·~ ·, • I • • of circumstances relied upon by. the tdal court in convicting the a_ppellant · , : . <" .: .~: ._' :,..; :.. have not been established on ·.the . standard I .. required ·in. ~riminal . cases. .· · •. • f l .. •. • ... ~ :" '. '!'°· Dealing with circumstancial evidence, '.the. Eastern African Court· of·\. ' •.. -! . . .. : . ·... :·.; .,.,- '"'·.'·, :), . Appeal in R.V. Kipkering

Aras{.K~skE!_ and Kimure Arap Mat~tu_: . :,:. · , ~ .t ~ ,..... :.,...... . ---: . . .• [1949]16 EALR, 135 had this to say~- "In order to justify, on .circumstan~ial evidence, the inference of. guilt, the incuipatory fad:s .mus( be_. ·incompatible with'.. the innocence of the accused c1nd incaqable of expl,ma_tion upbr/ ariy I other reasonable hypothesis . than of. his. guilty, and the' burden of . .. . . I . . . . proving facts whichjustify • • - the • draiting ,, of this inference• from.the_ . :,,·""_:.. ..1 facts to the exclusion of any reasonable hypothesis of innocence • -1 • _;, is always on the prosecution c1nd nerer shifts to the accuse~. " : .I ~ -41'_,._ . .. ' . . . . .: :. .' '.-- , . . . ; .. In this case, the cumulative strand,s of circumstances' r.eliedJJpon by . . : ·-·~....... _, .. tfa~ trial court do not; f~r reasons already .given,: .clinch.:tb :the _·appei'lant~$ . guilt. What is evident .however, ·is t~·e·!°existence of circumsta~~~s·· ~f -a . ·.:' ! . .' -~ . . . ~. . . ' . strong suspicion, devoid of conclusive -·evidence,·. that the .appellant was I• • • < • '• ' involved in the theft incident under scrutiny. On ·this, i subscribe to: the I_ . 11 ., i

I I I observation . made in the .case of Benedkt Ajetu V.R [1983] TLR 190 -½ tilat, ':Suspicio1i however strong1 _cannot tqke the place ofproof. SARKER o~f EVIDENCE drives the point home· thus:- "Circun1stances of strong · suspicion without more . conc/us[ve · e.vidence are · not sufficient to Justify .. · conviction, even though the party offers no· explanation of them.-,,, i . All said and done, I allow the appeal, -quash the appellant's conviction . and set aside :the sentence meted out _by the trial court. Consequently, the , ..... appe!iant ls to be released forth with from prison unless otherwise lawful . ·: · .. held. · .... . .. Orde;-ediaccordi . . . . . ngly. ~ ' : ' :A.E. BUKUKU JUDGE. Delivered ·at Mwanza · This 15th Octobe'r, _.· . 2014 .. '' 'I 12 ... • • ✓