19900302 TZHC Dar es Salaam2
The conviction was unsafe as it relied solely on the uncorroborated evidence of PW3, who may have had a grudge, and there was no positive evidence linking the goods found with the appellant to the theft from Hotel Mount View.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19900302 TZHC Dar es Salaam2
- Parties
- Appellant: Morasi John; Respondent: The United Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 2 March 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction quashed, sentence set aside, appellant released, compensation order discharged
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Theft, Evidence, Corroboration
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Morasi John
Appellant
The United Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant was safe based on uncorroborated evidence
- 2 Whether the goods found with the appellant were proven to be stolen from Hotel Mount View
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was unsafe as it relied solely on the uncorroborated evidence of PW3, who may have had a grudge, and there was no positive evidence linking the goods found with the appellant to the theft from Hotel Mount View.
Court Disposition
conviction quashed, sentence set aside, appellant released, compensation order discharged
Orders
- conviction quashed
- sentence set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
n-r '7.Lil1: crcm COURT OF T.llNZ:.Nif. AT DtQ ES SJJ.iAf'Jd ,. l.PPELLATE JURISLICTION TJ:Gii COllil.T CilIMINl..L J..PPEAL NO. 97 OF 1989 (From ori{!in..:~ Brimiltal Case N'o 6 370 of l9Go of ~hs District Court of ... Morogoro Dis·~iot at Moroeoro) ..... MOl'ASZ Jori:N. • •• • •.,, • •• • • • o. • • • • •• • • •. • •• •, ••• •., ••••• , • , •••• APPELI.Ji.N'l' · · ( O:r~""lllal Accused) versus TTIE UNITED :ilEPIIDLIC ... • • • •.,. • • •• ~. • • •. • o •• • • . , . , . • • •., , .• ~ • •., ~ESPONDENT (OriGinal Prosecutor) aEl.SONS Ml'..PIGANO1 J,• ·. The a.ppGllant Hotr1.si John w~s oonviotGd by tho c1isJ.;riot oourt of MoroGoro at Moroeoro of breakinc into a, buildint; end oommi tting theft ·therein oontrm'y to sootion 296( 1) of the Panel Cod.a. Tho- learned trial raacistrato tb.Gll PMSGd a. sentence of imprisonnont upon hin, a. term of 011D yoe::r, and ordered thnt he should pey a sum of shs~1C6,235/~ to tho aompla.- inant boinG the vnl:u.e of the aoods he is said to have stolen. I hoard the r.p1)eal a.t Morogoro, qilc1.shed the conViotion, set aside tho sentonoo; ordered his i1Jinadiata· roloaso f'rom custocly nnd discharged the order for oomponsa.tion. I will now state tho ran.sons fo~ IItY' docil!!fion. The pa.rtioult>.Xf:1 of the oha.rce c'.'..llGGud tho.t tho 1:'..l,)}.)Gllant Md two othor persons ht"'.d. 'broken into IIotel Mount View si tucted in tho M.tnicipal.ity of Morogoro on 20/12/0D at about 03.20-hours and that tlJ.GY ha.cl. theroattGr stolen sevo~r..l coocls valued at shs.1Ci6,235/- boloncil'lC to ona mu-a:µ. ?>fukb:L. The. D,ppellant, liko his two oo-t1..oousod, doniod tho truth ot t~o oharGO• The oVilenoo established that tho build.ine was brolcon into dur~ the n.icrht in qttGstion and thn.t savoral coods wcro stolon nnd tak:an awqy . by tho culprits whioh included drinks of clifforont ty)_)os, It is olo~ tl1c'.'..t in conViotinc- tho appollnnt ·'i;h~ t:cicl. oaaistrato relied hoaVily on ·f;l:..o oviclonoc of PW~ D.:-.shiri Moh['l;lcc'!. Ally. Accor~ to PW3, ho net With tl:8 appellant on 20/12/00 o.t about 5 iht1. at an undisclosed placo. The cppollc.nt 'W'l::>,s in tho compo;ny of one of his. oo-a.ccusod and was corry:inc a bre. lio PW3 heel. boon soaxohin.c for the qppallc'Jlt booauso tho l\PPGllruit h,... ,.., .,,., ,...~,,,,,.v stolon his p:roporty• In the oou.rso of thoir convor- sa.tion the. e.,ppo1l~1"ii 011\;i,u.~u. ·~.w....... ~ ~.~(. :;.-:i ?W3 saw th.a oontents, no.moly, 2/••••• ... 2 tins ~six . / of ir.1por-ted beo:c-, one bottle of whis1cy, ono 1)o"'d;le of coon. cola. IIo 11ft them c..ncl wont to look for_ j)oopl0 who coulc'L heJf hiD to apprehend the appell['..lr~1 _Ile cane back in r.. lr11drov0r 1 bu-'i; h0 clicl not tGll tho court whether ho W[',S c..cconpaniGd by MY one. When the r..ppoll~t a.nd his companion saw the vahiolo c.ppronching tho appolla:1t c1roppecl ·;;110 hri(; and -r2n 1off6 Ile I r;avo chnso, OOX1Cht up with tho [1,ppollc..nt · [lllcl appl'ehanclocl him• llc said tha.t tho Police scizoc1 the bac, lmt there we,s only .his worcl for that, The r..ppcllo.nt nd.mittcd havinc; met with PW3 on that ci--w. nut he doniod th1!l.t he -k..s o~ing a "'.;CC; an.cl the.t ho maclo c.. 1)ic1 to ovooe m-rest, The Rep1i::,lio clicl not support the conviction as it felt that it was unsafe to. roly on the unoorrobo:ratccl oViclenoo of PW3. I wr,s of tho same opinion•. _Dccruso, in the first plnoo, if PW3 happoncKl to entertcin ·i;ho 1)olfof tha.t tho a.ppollont had stolon his proper-1:lf, thG reaJ. chonoos arc that ho hw c. crudGo acninst the appe- llnnt ti.t tho tino he WO.~ Givinc eviclonoo in this o~sc C P.da evidoncG should, ~horGforo, hc.ve baen approached with c;roat on:ro, o..n,1 I t\."'I'~O wi t!i tho proposition- that d.t requ.irecl indopcndGnt corrobor1:1,tivo cVic1.onoc, 1-thich was misa4.uB. Secondly, ovon "if Pi,3 is to. be bcliovocl c.l'l.cl the court were to find that tho appellant was actually o ~ ~ - ·tho drinks _in c, J;a,:; 2.nd tha.t he r.1n.clo an attet1pt to oscape 1 it would still bo ui1sc1fo to 0011.oluclo tho:h those cl.r·111ks woro part of tho lot that was stolon froo IIotol Mount View,· in tho absonca of ~ positive ovidonoo to tha.t offoot. ~