N

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TAN ZAN A ATLRU SHA APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.193 OF 1974 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 40 OF 1974 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAME DISTRICT AT PARE BEFORE:- S. N. FU1DIKIRL, Esq., District Magistrate OWIRA OLOG ..................... .........APPELLANT (Original Accused) versus THE REPUBLIC ....... , RESPONDENT .................. (Original Prosecutor) JUDGMENT JONATHAN, J. OWIRA ALOO and a co-accused were charged jointly with burglary and stealing c/ss. 294(1) and 265 of the Penal Code. The cO-accused was acquitted. but OWIRL., here the appellant, was convicted and duly sentenced to a substantive sentence of 3 years' imprisonment. The Prosecution case was itself too thin to support a conviction. According to the complainant he returnd home to find his house had been broken into and many things, including clothes and utensils, stolen. He does not appear to have reported to the police, but he claims he reported to the cell leader. Several weeks later he came across the wife of the appellant wearing what he recognised to be his towel. He then reported to the cell leader and later to the police who conducted a search of the house of the appellant. A 'Kha.nga: and two 'sufurias' were found but it is not shown if the complainant identified them as some of the stolen items. Then, for reasons which are not apparent, the house of' the co-accused was searched and several things found, which the complainant identified as being among the things that had been stolen from his house. The Prosecution did not adduce evidence to connect the appellant with these things and the trial court ought to have acquitted him on a no-case ruling. In the event, however, he gave evidence to the effect that the complainant hd pawned his things to him for the sum of shs.O/=. He added that, subsequently there was s little quarrel between them; the complainant wanted his things back without paying back the loan. He had, therefore, entrusted those things to the co-accused, whose acount bore out the appellant's version of the matter. There was also the evidence of another defence witness who said that the complainant had had occasion to complain to him about the appellant's refusel to return certain things >had given to him. The defence, viewed against the somewhat unconvincing story of the complainant ought to have raised a substantial dOubt that the complainant may well have pawned the things to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside. The appei 1 ant should be set free. (p. M. JONATHAN) /MTPM. JUDGE.