19920819 TZHC Dodoma

IE ..- . (FilOI-1 TH:':: DTI1CISlll01J Oli' ':::JT:: DIS'.::HIGT COURT OF D,.,j)')l:::\ N:i: :•)OJ;ji_'.\. tr c:;1ILJj:.(;.L /:.,?}?;'JAL LO. 2 CCi' 1991) 0:1IG'.C°f.i\J.J CiUHP.:t.L GL:<F: !:TO. 723 Clf 1990 OF •.:Jrr~ m1BJl..1·· :::i:iJ:J:-.:\nY cnJ~'.:! m":>m1:1.1:~ OF JGIX::JE\. • n • • • • • • • veraus B!l.IL:\.Rl Ol'.:..-'\.J.1I • o •• • • • • • • • • convict:3cl of th0 offence of mnlicious damage to propert-y ~/a 326 (1) of the ?ena.1 Code C ), 16 by the·Dodoma iIUJ."1.icipal P:i."itiw.ry Gom."'t, }Ic was sentenced to siJ months i..-,1pJ:'isonmont o.nd was o:..."~ePed to compensate the con,plainant (now appellant~) liI', ·naka:.."'i s/o 1-::.asawe some Slls. 2 1 250/-. The cor:1plainant r.w.c~e his fi::.-,st e.ppeal to Doclotna District Cour•t for the enhancement of sentence. The .learned DistPict Iio.gi otro.t;; found tbat the offence of malicious dar.rn.gc to prope!'ty had not been p;."O vecl anc1 so he refu·scd to enhance the sent0nce D.ncl instead using his Pevisional powers hcquashcd the conviction and set usic1e tho sent once. Agg1"ieved by that decision, the complainant hns .riow appealed to this court. • •• • /2. 2 It wns cc·t, non r,rnunC. nt tho ·trial that on 1 30/7/1990 th ..:, :c~ospon.:"cm·;:; wont into tl1o appellant's house ant b,:::go.n to assnul t -ch~ iri fo of the said appellant.- In tho cou1.,se of tho nssnul t or fight, the appell.cmt' s re1.c}io fo11 doun 8.nc~ e;ot tai.i1agcd. .'\ metal · pot also got c1L"lDJ.P:;Gc1 • . N10 _v.ppoll2.nt 011ozoc. qt the 1 trial thnt tho _ch.1t:10.ge a11jountcc1 to Shs. 4, 500/-. The learned Distri~t Ha.gis>:>::.tc VGl"'Y 001.,rcctly cited the decision of this cou~t in tho case of . ' ' ~9• ..sLo..:,]}-1$.P;Z.O'f0.0.. vr.s... _A~_:. _(,1,9..6,...7,.l. I~..G.~.:1• ..11•...JJ_j_ whore I -· . it wa.s :hold that Nhoro a situo.tion. o.rfscs., so.y, in the ,I COUl''SG o.n o.ru-Jnul t., . a c'.ox,1c.g0 io cnur.rnd to some p1•0-port-y., such c-::i.r.10. 6 0 is not to be cond.c1erec1 as done wjlfully but r~thor the· d~.J~~o is to bo considered me~oly inciQcntal to t~e asanult a.na not' a s~parato c~o.mo.ge ;to th(-:1 ~)l"'opo;;,.. ty in tl1is unse o The l"a.c.io . - ' ' wcro dacingod acci:cntly in the cnune conviction fo1" the sc.1:1 o wo.s 1.,ightl°J'· quashed. I~nd the lcnrnod 1)ist;rict Er.gi otrc-i.t;) wo.s Pight to ndviBc th:1 ,, appellc.n-c to fiile a civ:t:, suit fo1., ·a 1..e-~focss~ In tlv) cwent the nopcal fed.ls c.nc.l it is dismissed in its onti:L.. ety. Order accordinglye l ..U:~~Q.:q - ·19/0/1992 Court: • · - •· :•·,::c Tho judgr.1cnt to bo typedp cyclostlcc1 o.nd dospatchod to ])oCoi,JU :)ist:..--ict Cou::.."t for reo.c:inc ov8r t·o _t l?-'.}_Jl_ni"'ti o so !1 ,r- ::· r-1 ! .: ."......_:IV'.""h \ ,,.._,.1-.,: ,' . ---·~----~'-- ( J .. Lo v·_-:.J..UtJ.\:.'.:.'."..'_) JUDCF:! - ·19/,8/1992 ........... J .,. •