20010404 TZHC Mtwara1

1 IN THE IItGIi COUT 'F 1NIA (MTWARi. REGISTRY) PPELLI•.Th JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO0 53 OP 2000 ORIGINAL CRININAL CASE NO0 260 OP 2000 OF THE DiSTRICT COURT OF MnSASI AT MASASI BEFORE: J.B.C. MASSITO, ESQO, S. D MAGITATE OSCAR Mi.TH YO........ APPELL..NT versus: THE REPUBLIC. o ORESPONDENT

UDGNT The appellant OSCAR M.THAYO was chargeii with arson C/S 319(a) f the Penal Code Cap 16. vlhen the charge was read over to him he pleadea guilty. ,When t, he facts were explained to him he accepted them to be trieand correct0 He was consequently found guilty as charged on hs wn plea of guilty, and was convicted accordingly. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, his appeal is against conviction nd sentence. He is challenging the conviction on two grounds namely:.; 1.• That when he set fire to the complainant's louse he was drunk, 2. That he pleaded guilty because he thought if he did so the matter would be referred back home for a possible smicable settlement.. In reply the learned State Lttorney who represented the .Republic at the hearing of this appeal Mr. P4asaju said the .ppeal against conviction should not be entertained by virtue of S. 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1985 because the appellant had pleaded guilty and his plea was unequivocal. He said this case is not covered by the exceptions prescribed in the case of LENCEINGAVsR983)TLR166.. The learned State Attoney went an replying that intpxication is not a defence in cases of this. nature by virtue of S. 14(1) of the Penal Code Cap 16. The learned State torney - - a - 2 - went on replying that if the appellant was really drunk hen he committed that offence he shouldn't have failed to say so at his tria1

9 because at that time he was not drunk I have carefully considered the appellants grouuids of appeal and the reply thereat by the learned State Attorney. I have also carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. Indeed the appellant's appeal against conviction cannot succeeds He pleaded guilty. When the facts were explained to him he accepted them to b,e true and correct. His plea was unequivocal0 He was properly convicted As properly stated by the learned State Attorney, the circumstances of this case do not fall under the excptions laid down in the case of L.WRENCE cited above. As faras the defence of intoxication is concerned, this is just an afterthoughts Had he really been drunk to an extent of not knowing as to what he was doing or what he was doing was wrong., he wouldn' t have failed to say so at the trial as by then he was not drunk. Had he done so necessary action should have been taken under S. 14 of the Penal Code Cap 16 His appeal against conviction has no merits and is hereby dismissed. As far as sentence is concerned, the sentence of 5 years imprisonment is not excessive, especially that the house he set on fire was of a woman who must have suffered a great deal. His appeal against sentence is also aismissed. Ul.in all, this appeal has been dismissed in its entirety0 I - o . K..JI

JTJD GE 4.4.2001 Gourt: Judgment has been delivered in the presence of Mr. Masaju and. Hezron learned State Jttorneys and in the absence of the appellant who does not wish to be present this , th day of 1,Lpril 9 2001. 0 / , '-.----- 1 s N. KAJI — JUDGE 4.4,2001 B/C:• 1r LàddL,/ R/.. 'N /1 -