19790129 TZHC Dodoma2

/• •-eou --: c AT DODONA CRTi1 r1A1'No..J : 1978 140riginal cr.mi.nal ease No, 394 OF 0 7 o 'bhe Court of Siugjd.g. Bafoe Samboja Dis. iviag'.) NTAJDU BA IJLNGA '. '. '. . . . , . . •T A ppeliant (Origin Meused) versus THE REPUBLIC . . . '. '. . . . . . Rèsporidt ;; (Original Proeeorfor} :- let & 3rd. Connte, iglar a. 2944* of the renal- Code. 2nd & 4th Count: dheft c/265 of the Peni Càde, JUDG1U The appeal 1ackinerit and was admitted to hearing largely. on .a technical flaw in the ccnnactions'.. There were two aomp1its in this case- ::'amely. P11 4t and W.2, They both apear to have left their respective hous -wefl secured on the Christmas day of 1977 PW..1 in the mornizig.. and PW..2 at about six o'clock in the evening.. On returning at &out eight o'clock, however, they found their houses having been broken 'into and their nlothes and other items missing. luckiJy for them, they wsre soon told, foiwing their alarm, that someone bad been arrested hi1e conveying a bundle of clothes and that they could be viewed .at. the police - station. They soon go there to find all their' items in police sustody. It"trans'pfred that at about h-lI past eight o'clock that night - PW.3 had come across tI.t' appellant carrying that bundle. of clothes in circumstances which were suspioious. He had therefore stopped and interrogated him, wheret)pon the latter pflled a hoe out of thai bundle and aimed it. at the- witness. That confirmed to hii•i the property had been stole., so he raised an a1arrn, The' appellant then abandoned. the bundle and took to his heels ht he was soon thereafter apprehended by one AML.NI and btber people who had prom -pt2r' responded to the...alarm,of PW.3, -' The appellant in 2n unswor Ltment-claimed that - he bad been travelling to 14.rusha rout the township of ingi&a when he was ofronted and be.±en up by some people who then proc.eeded to rob him of ss28O. Two other people, presumably LW.3 and WTI, had thc. 'come acrots him at the scene - having" his clothes in. a baskt They would not listen. to his ace omit of what had aJ- -'just befa1le in -2-- ant, instead4 they took him to the police station. He made a vi1ed claim to the exhibit items when he said, and I may repeat his -ewn words: ',••some of my clothes are not wi-thin 'thee exhibits. This is all i-wished tosay". He oaled a witness whose brief accoinit shors that he had that Christmas Day .si'en the appellant with clothes in a basket wait ixig for a bus at. Nakiungu.. Both the complainants ear to have to have given detaile -marks of identification of their items and can find no fault with the lower court's finding that the -exhibits were the stolen items. The appellant, on the other hand,-made no attempt whet'v'r to show any of those items belonged to him. Indeed,- iy such claim would have been invalid cQnsidering that he had 80 readily abandoned.. them to flee. I am satisfied, therfore, hewas rightly found to have been in possession of the stolen items of the complainants, the theft had occurred so very recently and the only conclusion to reach was that he had himself been the thief in. each case." The two incident had most probably 'been bommitted only a4a ho or so previously but there, could be no certainty they accurred after seven o clock Po to c oiwict of. burglary A000rdthgly, for the COflV±CtiOfl of burglary in each case- there is substituted a conviction- of -house breaking. The s-ubstarrtive sentence - of 3 years' imprisonment is the minimum and there can be no complaint against it and, in the result, the appeal is 4ismis,sed in its entIrety'... . •• .. e1ivered in open court this 29th day of January, 1979. • P. M. JONATHAN / YDG - . I DODQMk.