19880311 TZHC Dar es Salaam

1Tr~~"-'-:- ""~•- --------- . ..i .. ....,. AT "1)£.R..~·•·-- . . ..... ES SL.LIJilvI . > ~,.. ;.P:?ELtt'.-.'J.'F. :i:ninsnTc:;·:i:m, •• ..;,.it ",.r,I, • H;rGit COURT CRil'11NAL APPE!JL N0.118 OF l9f37 From origihcl. Cr;iminnl Caso No._867 of 19[>4 o:f t.h"" ni r.d::r.irrt, Court of Ilo.J..a District_ o.t K-. ,,.,_...4,u) l.1Wl.LIBU SEIFU ♦ • • 0 0 • O O O O O O O • 0 • O e -.. O O • " o b " ~ ., • • • o c, • • 1 • • • • .. - • <> o .Ii.PPELLJJJT • ;.._-. { -OX-ie;:i.nnJ. Lo 01;:; ·.oct.; versus THE UNITED REPUBLIC• •• • • o • • • , ., • o. •.• • • • o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . ., .RESPOJ\JDENT f · (Original Prosocuto:r )J<_,,. JUDGEUENT BiillhTI, J • This is an ap:paaJ._ by 11:walib .Seif who was convicted by the District Court at Kisutu for the offence of o..-ttompting to stocl. a motor ,rohi.r-.lo contr2,.ry to section 3130 and 265 of the Penal Code and sentenced to tbree years' imprisonm011.tc The ·case f'or the prosecution was that PW1 N.irs Naxgis Shivji had ·park0d h0r -vehicle near IPS building~ ru:1.a she saw a. person in hor vehicle as she walked with one Mr., Scott to Walji Travol ~-:tU.. Mro Scott confrontGd tho intruder and fought h:i,m while PW1 watched. The intruder= r.ianaged to kiclc Mr. Scott. and escape. k,tcr on PW1 wns told. tho.t tb.o person who we..nted to steal her- vehicle had boon arrested., PW1 went to the Police Sta.tion to muke her statement w1d while at tho Police Station s.ho saw the very person who had boon sec.;liod in her motor vohicloc. L.1 cross-examination PW1 said that she sau the a.ppollan.t being boo.ten by t2.lc Police. Concerning tho scono of crir.le she said that the o.ppoll:u.1Jli w0,c pulled out of the vehicle and that tho lock of the do_or o:f hor co.r w-2..c broken m1d some wires 'had been romovod 1 Then there wo.s tho evidence o:C Inspector Matei Basiho (PW2) who so.id that he took; n C2,Utioi1ccl Tt~-~-c:--_.::··. of the n.ppelln.nt n:ft~r the appellant i·ms brought to hir.:r by a Police Constable. Ile tendered the cautioned statement as an o.xhibit* In tho statement the [1,ppellant cdmittod being found in the vehicle of PW1 where ho w2,s trying to ste.:il tho cnr re.die. Ile □ an1Jgcd to esco.po bu:t he w~s arrested socn after that _by the Police• He concluded -thc1..t ho 11:td been trying to steal the cnr radio ,•.nd not the c.s.r itself-. Tho defence 02-se was th;;,t on 21/0/34 o.t c.roui1d 3 p.m. he ha.cl got to Samorn./Azild.we Streets a.nd Jqmhuri/Azild.we,. Streetsff Thon he wont-- -to Empire Cinemc.. to see what movie wc.s for that evening. Thon ho .gCCI., 2.ll. Asicm o.p.d. African, pulling cc.ch other's _sb:i.:rts• He approc.cJ:ied then to try and intervene.. .Then the Africa.n ron o.wcy. Then the 1 ~ inoisted thd "' the appclln.nt must be knowing the person _who hnd. ;c-an awcy, T:1-0 o.ppoll::-.J.rt - 2 __ :_:c: -this~ Then some people trie::d. to bent the appoll0.11t,, Tb.on the c..ppcllo.nt ,., :'clicencm one of whom was o..rracde Tho senior Polic0rnai.1 who happened to be · \::gioncl Police Commonder Dnudi quarried ru.l those at tho scene including -- : -)i_)ellont. The appelln.nt explained what had token plooee- Then Regional · -:~ ~ ,: (: Cor:u:10.ndor Daudi wns told by o_. Eu..ropeo.n -i;hn:t tho mmor of' the motor voh.icle ~;_,::; :.:1.:3 str-.ff and tlli1t she was n.t IPS building~ Tllo O1-mor of- th0 notor vc~nc_Lc •,_ .cr,lled n.nd she took: the noto::.- vehicle to CentroJ. Police St2-tion_. T110 0,ppc- ~ l ·.::t ~i0s driven to the Contrcl Police Station where he saw nine Police en i:~Jl-i.1di11g Matei Basiho PW2. · He was tortv.red. anc1 required to tell the Police <·-~,t persons were car thieves. PW'2 also tortured the appellant. Then the ·_::)elli..mt made a con:fession to the Police<; He was aJG the Police Station ror -'.,'D - c.1cys n.nd on 29/8/84 his statement was taken 6 Then on 30/3/84 1, 0 was taken in before PW2 where he confessed..., PW2 told the appcJln:n& to sign a statement -, ____ ::oh had already been prepared.· In cros~ination -the appellant said that ho did"busin0ss of' selling drinks and fruits and that he lived at Likoma House No,.51 Kc1:piakoo,t ri'::1e learned Resident Magistrate held that the confession of the appellai1t ·ct., ~---:"i2 wC1.s voluntary and therefore admissible and tb.a.t the retrnotod con:f0ssion c.? -~~::o -appellant was corroborated by the evidence of PWla& The eppollant .~a,;:; 8c::··.::...Jted as charged and s0ntonoed to tbreo years' .irnprisonmcmt9 :=:1 his p~ti tion of appeal tho appellai1t set out three grounds of appecl tn ".;::co effect that the confession should not have been adm. tted because it was i:1702.1.:ntary and retracted i'.l.11.d -!;hat t:ic defence case was not considered• In co1.h-t Nr. Rutashobya learned counsel for the o..ppellant:i 2.rgued thc,t even PW·; I • Lcl that tho appellmrt wo.s beaten;:; This showed that the appellant uas tortured~ . '.<.. CTU.bni tted. further th2,t there was evidence of' torture" Concerning the retracted c:,;c:.?cssion, ].l[r• Rutashobya said the.t there was no corroboration to it,. He also r_-_--~~r.uttod that the trinl .oourt never considered the explanation given by the · :_·,:,'?llant in his defence,. Miss Munisi, loaxnod State Attorney for the · ~',-:O!\'onc1cnt, submi ttod that the conviction was not nerely based on a repudic.tcd c•:.':t.'..'cssion because there 1-ras corroboration to the confession f'ron the evidence ,:? :.~~-71 2nd FW2• She stated fu.rther that there was no evidenc~ of' forturo alld t>.:·.:t tho confession was volunfo.ri'.l.y ma.dee, ~ . Concerning the failure by the :>,:;i:.:trc..te to consider J.;he defence} Miss Munisi submitted that this is because Tho evidence which was before tho trial couxt consisted of the repudi~tcd c :--:.lf'ossion or possibly retracted confession, and also evidence of' PW1 anC r::2;~ I :::~- that it _was either of -'i;he two because the appellant stated in his defence thnt ho confessed because of torture,- and then he said that ho was nacle to sign ~ pTopn.rcd statement, implying by this that ho never told tho Police anything 0 :;::1 -:::..,;/ on,so the law with regn.rcl -'c;o a retracted conf'ossion and a repuclio.tecl .-.::i,.i:::'c::mion is the c2Dc 1 nanely 5 that to be found in' the case of Bonbo Tonolo. ,.:';.,.B.J: 1900) TLR 254, which is that corroboration of such eviclence is requ.irod;r; ,_-:; l:c:foro· I start looking for corroboration I hc..ve to decide first whether " c t::.'icl Magistrate was right :in adr1i tting the con:fossion of tho appellant < io~L -is contained in a cautioned str.1,tonont. The appellant statec1 tha,t he wns -f;-:~tu:..'ot1 and as a result of that he hrul to confess. Also ·tho. appollD11t stdbc.l -~: ~-,-~ c-.:;:'·i;er the tor~e ancl after other ·irtf.10.:tbs hru1 warned ·hit~ t6 confess bdco;tJ.so .f, .• · ·' >s~c-h:'.C.1 6-ls6 beeiri tbi'turea, ho was ncido to sign a pre).)ared st[~tor.1011-h. PW2 But M hct<l. smd. :tit c;oss ei2nil'i.ci.tion thc.'t ~-',.,;''.~i;cc't the nJ.legatiohs of :Cor1iure. :-::.b Sb,w the appella.nt being bc11ten by the '.Policea The ieci-ned triol lvl.""gistratc 1,_,:l0tt _thrdi ·hhero wo.s no torture proved.On CT$' pb;rt I would hotel thr::~ there w2.s ~, ,, 1201:'!o tbrea:b· which induced tho appellant to mik~ ·his confossion• TJ.10 cloo.r ovid~s;;'. . .,_ . . . . ;,f l:;,,°t o2 ~-T1 to tho effect that sho saw -tho appellant be:i.ng beaten, clearly shous tho:t:-:/...;:. t::.o oonfossion wa.s involuntary. It could ·not therefore hn.ve boon cldr:li ttcd ~1deJ:0~i•\•· ]otion 27 of the Evidence Act, Could it be ndmitted under section 29 of tho .; . ,I-~{ l Ev:i..c:cnce Aot 11 Section 29 providoss ' ."'I!: ;' 11 No confession which is tonclered :in evic1enco shr.11 bo reject0d on the gTound that a pronise or throat has been held·out to the person confessing unless the court is of the opinion that tho inc1uccnont was 1:1o.c:1c in such circuustences and was of such a nature as waf.l likely to c2.uso an untrue o.dl:iission of guilt to bo n2..dc 11 • ::~r ::_'c::-,e_1ing o..nd understanding of section 29 :l.s to the effect that ovoh ru1 i11volu- :1t:.--.:;7;;,r co11.f'cssion is ac:1.nissiblo c:,s long o.s cer-~ain conditions 2,S provided in the :co-liion CJ."'O present. If tho induccnori.t which led to tho confossion wci,s not such. :--_r..· ,~2-s likely to cn:uso an untrue G.<lnis~iolt of gu.d.ltt then; according to scotioi1 -., ::::t:.cl: confession shall not be rejected• The question uhich foilmrs then is 1,;'.1,: ·c:1or such condi t:l..ons do · e~ist. '.I: woul.d answer this question in tho .-,..f'firrni- ti vc bocnuso of the following reasons,,. Tho coutionecl stc1fonent gives detcils of tho residence, the job and Ji;h0 crino itself• The sto,tcnont Gnds up by ~1.0:'1;:',~-1g tho charge o:f attooptod theft but con:fessing to an offonce of stocling 2:rm:1 2, vehicle• Furthernore in his defence tho appellant gives -'i;he so.no f::'.Cts c:--~~o..rcling his residence nnd work. IIc cl.so oil.mi ts being c1.rrestod on tho sru,1e , . ;r of the crine Dn.d o.t about tho sane tir:io. Tho co.utionod sfa.tor.:icnt talks of :•. ::d'1. when all the events loading to the attcnpted ·theft happened, an.cl tho ;-.:1~c:c'll G·co,tcnent of the appelln.nt tallrs o,bout tho sone tinee T'.1e contents o:f t:·_::: 02.utioncd statouent tcl)y in sono detail with tho contents of t~10 def once• It i:.: tJ.:..oroforc clenr in oy opinion -~h2,t the confession is nothing but tho truth~ ·,.._ T-'- follows that the induccnont to Ji;he appellant was not likely to co.use an untrue{/ ::-,tl:_:i r:sion of guilt to be on.do• IJ.1 other words, DJ. though the appellant w0,s :i.::c'..-.::.cccl to no.kc the confession ho did not r:d.w u.n U.'ltrno adnission of GU,il t,., :::::,'..cod, ho was not ndni ttine the o.ttonpted theft of tho no'tor vchiclo 1 bu:t ho i:1;:_;·~c~-il. ~'JJJJi tted only attenpting to steal ·the cnr' s rroio. If ho wo,s ind~ed -:,, ., '· -~o Dake a falso confession~ hu woulc'c llo.vc ncli;ii ttGd to atto17tpting to steal. t~c car itself,. In this case tho learnocl trial Magistrate of course <lid not consider section 29,. But I an satisfied that h[l,(,l she clone co s!J.G w01,1.JJ1. ha.vc ranched tho conclusion that tho inclucomcnt was not r.1w:lo in such a. • oircumstn.nccs and ,ias not of such a 11Q.tu.ro as ,;-ras likely to cnuso :::.n unti'Uo. :.e.bission oI guilt to bo ma.do. I therefore hold the,-!; the con:foc::i::.on ,,:.,D .~ c.vlin.issiblc UJ."l.dor section 29 of the Evido;1co 1,ct.. Since i·c was repucliatccl :.md rotractecl by tho appellant in his u.ef0:1cc~ thorG was ncccl for corrobo-:- r,'J.tion., Corroboration cn...11 bo -found in tho ovid.oncc of PW1 who 0,vcrrod. {:.:2.-~ r,>.o oaw tho appellant as ha struggled nith Mro Scott [•,nd · thn.t when sh,e so.:u l.:.L.1 Q&Din at tho Police St2-tion on tho sai-10 day she identified hin as tho 1·Krson who hro boon trying to stoc:1 her cc..r., Evon on its mm the e:rvid.cnoc 02 PW1 could. sustain a conviction because· she wa.s the oy·o witness to the cri;Jo and tho conditions of identifico.,tion wore favourable sil1co it 1ms c.lo.,y -i;j ::10, and. somo tine passed before the appollc111t osco.pccl 2..ncl she saw hiu rt0 a,in 0:..1 ·cho S2.l:lC day at the Police S~.;c..tion ~rhilo still in the so1.1c concli tiono Ti.• cro w_as n, coraplaint r2.isod in tho_ poti tion of appeal a.bout the failure n:f· -~).10 trial i:fo,gistrato to consic't.cr tho defence story., T..10 trin.l Court ~m''Gi:1.inly considered some aspects of tho clofonce story such 2.s· tho clo..iu o:i? forturo 2.llcl the repudiation of t!.10 oon:fession., She rejected i-6 as un·crup c:nl .\old the confession to be voluntc.r3r. As for the rest of tlw up1)ellont 's ;:::tory, tho s&.10 ,m.? rc•joctod by implicQ.tion as fc1lso .. In aiw·caso it wc,,s 7 •:::-cntcd by lom-ncd Stn.to ii. ttornoy 1 Go ir:relov2..nt as not to 1:Je worthy of .2,;zy- _considoration. li.nd in o.ri:y cc:::rn -~his court is cnpowcrccl to consiclcr it ~-nc: . soc w11otb.cr it raises an,y roason2.blc cloulJto i'ly- ovn.luc.'.:tion of --;;~10. d.cf'cno0 -_~-liory- is t~1at it is noroly a otorj fo..brico..tod to cor1.fuso issuoo. It is sono · ·sort of n.n c.libi which in view of tJ.~e prosecution case, cc..nnot stmido I'.'i_'.,Cl "~':10 loQ,rnocl }ifa.Jis·crato considered. it, I au of tho opinion thc1t she would ].J.r.:ve fc.joctod it o.::;.wollo It follows fron the above :chc:t -bl:is appcn.J, is dovoi6. of 1:1.cri t o.nd. I 1tls,·1iss it in its entirety° in view of tho f2-0t that I c1o not fin:l tho splrt;onco to bo exccssivo in tl1c circunst2.11cas of this ·c2,s0., JUDGE · 11/3/88 C--,u:rtg Juclgocnt dolivorocl in coui't in presence of Mro Rutn.s).1.oby2. fol' · appellant and Miss r.'fu.n:issi _:i:or ~cpu1:Jlic .. JUDGE 11/3/SG ,...