19720602 TZHC Arusha2
The trial magistrate properly evaluated all evidence, considered the defence, and correctly identified the goods found in possession of the appellant, establishing ownership and guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19720602 TZHC Arusha2
- Parties
- Appellant: Neyi Miwi; Respondent: Wbi jj Uf Lic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 2 June 1972
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Theft, Appeal, Sentencing
- 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
Neyi Miwi
Appellant
Wbi jj Uf Lic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for burglary and theft was proper
- 2 Whether the sentence was excessive
- 3 Whether the trial magistrate considered the defence
Ratio Decidendi
The trial magistrate properly evaluated all evidence, considered the defence, and correctly identified the goods found in possession of the appellant, establishing ownership and guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appeal dismissed in its entirety
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IH THU, HXWT ((JUWI O1 TZA!A AT ARUS}LA APPi ATE JUJ DiCTION 'L NO. 65 O1a 1972 Oi1IGibL CIIMIIL iI 1102 OF 1970 ( iISfliCi CC,.stT U .u. 'zlC'i' JT ArnJ.11A l3efure F(k. Lyiiga, iq., Resident Magitrate NEIYi. Mi1W a a a a a . a a 0. • .. a a a a t a a a0 • aa a a a a a aA FELL NT versu.s Wbi jj Uf LIC a a a • a . a a . a a a a a a a a aaaaa a a a a s a a a a RLP N)1LT cRcTh: 1. Bu.riary contrary to section 254 (i) of Penal Code. 2. StualQ3 ccntrary to section 265 of the Peral Code. JUDG P AG. J. - Appellant was convicted oh two counts for l3ur1ary contrry to soction 294 (i) and 2tea1in ccntr.ry to section 265 of I'enai We and was sentenced to 2 0 yosre imprionmont on first count and :no yo r irnpri:onment on second count. He now appeals agint conviction and ventence4 - gain grounds of appeal as st:rted in the Memcrandam of appeal are as Wx folowing:- That trial naistrate fal ed ta. ecaider deferAoo. That trial nagitrate nisdireotad himoelfis 3e 111hat roottion failea to prove the case beyond all reaaonMie doibte. 4. Ph t triul ma'iotrute fi.ed to onsider diccropaoee in prosecttion ose. r. Chambaaro fur the iepulic submitted that coma of the stolen goods were found in possession of the aellant soon after the offence took - n1ace and the case was proed beyond all teaaonable doubts. Going through the record it is clear ttt trIal magistrate tried the case with extreme care and hao dealt with all issues before — Im, goods fo nd in possession of the appellant were correctly and satisfactorilg identified and its ownership was clearly established. The trial sagistrate did consider the defence and directed his mind to all ascts of evidence before hi. He evaluated the evidence correctly and then made a finding. I see nothing wrong in his reasoning, argwnents and conclusion. There is nothing in record, Judgment or memorandum of appeal that will make me reverse his finding. As for sentence it is not at all excessive. For tieoe reasons the apoal is dicimissed in its entirety. Delivered in Court this 2nd 1ay of June, 1972 in presence of Mr. Lubo.va. Aru ha (.n. PJrL) AG. JtJQ U jam