19880607 TZHC Mtwara
The conviction was quashed because the only evidence against the appellant was possession of a mass-produced headscarf, which was not proved to belong to the complainant beyond reasonable doubt.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19880607 TZHC Mtwara
- Parties
- Appellant: MT 1055 L/CPL. Saidi Mkindi; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 7 June 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; convictions quashed; sentences set aside
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Theft, Evidence, Identification
- 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
MT 1055 L/CPL. Saidi Mkindi
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for burglary and stealing was supported by sufficient evidence
- 2 Whether the identification of the stolen property was adequate
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was quashed because the only evidence against the appellant was possession of a mass-produced headscarf, which was not proved to belong to the complainant beyond reasonable doubt.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; convictions quashed; sentences set aside
Orders
- The appellant is to be set free at once unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THJ:: HIGH COURT OF T A.1-JZ:ANIA AT MTWARA (Mtwara Registry) APPELL~TE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.13 OF 1988 Original Criminal Case No.9 of 1986 of the District Court of Song ea ·ois trict at Song ea B:°'.:fore: F'.h. FUSSI Esq. 1 S/District Ma~istrate MT• 1055 L/Cl?L. SAlDI MKINDI ·• • • • • 0 0 APPSLLANT versus / THE REPUBLIC Cl 0 CO 0 0 0 COO O O O O O O O o O 00 O RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T Rubama, J. MTol055 1,/cpL Saidi Mkindi was convi·cted of burglary contrary to section 294 ( 1) of the Penal Code and stealing eontrary to section 265 of the Penai Cod~. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment in respect of the 'first count and six months imprisonment in respect of the s~cond count the• ;entences to run concurrently., He has appealed to this court against both the convictions and sentences. There is sufficient evioence establishing the foilowing facts namely that on the nigl'lt of 8th Janija~y, .-966 at songea, the house of Clara d/o Mapun&ia was :t)~rgle<J and savefal items all valued at over ~~s.20,00O/= stolen from the~~~n. Nobody was a witness tQ the cornmiss).on ,of the c,ffence aJ'ld the appellant's convictions were based on tn,e recovery of a l\ea~st;ijff i;hat had '· been found in hi$ possession and whose owne,ship hqd ~een claimed by Clara Mapunc1 a 9 the compl<f;i.nant. Ttie appe ♦l,aff~' s nQij~e was searched and no1.::hing else said to ha\,e been t'-i♦''m frQm ~~ijra Mapunda was fo:.u,d from· tilside, the hoijse. This pi.ec--:. of evidence (i, e. hea~~Gft) .l,'i ;tearl.y very insufficiPnt c:: 1d I am surpris.ed that the t,ial miiistrate had found i t sufficicn•t on which to base a eonvictiQle The evidence of ••·· •••• •/2 .... 2 identification by Clara l"iapunda was ho evide·nce ,,. t all, she had no special marks to point out and the ciaim by t:he dpiJellaht thdt th 2 head-scuff was his could not be refuted on the svidehce, The h =3d-scuff is a mass produced item within access by many and it 0 needs no common sense for one to hold that i t is affordable by the appellant; it may very well have been that .:,f the appellanto rt was certainly not proved to have been the property of Clara Mapundao The convictions entered against the ap?ellant were therefore bad in law; they are botb quashed and the concurrent prison sentences imposed on the appellant set. aslde. It is ordered that the appellant be set fr2e at once unless he is otherwise lawfully being held on another matter. JUdge 7/6/88