19700715 TZHC Mwanza4
The conviction was upheld as the doctrine of recent possession was properly applied; however, the sentence was reduced considering the appellants were first offenders.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19700715 TZHC Mwanza4
- Parties
- Appellant: Pilicijtgodney; Appellant: Icfiejinents; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 15 July 1970
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal against conviction dismissed; sentence varied
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Stealing, Sentencing, Recent Possession
- 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
Pilicijtgodney
Appellant
Icfiejinents
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for burglary and stealing was proper
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the appellants were first offenders
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was upheld as the doctrine of recent possession was properly applied; however, the sentence was reduced considering the appellants were first offenders.
Court Disposition
appeal against conviction dismissed; sentence varied
Orders
- Sentence on first count reduced to three years' imprisonment
- Appellants to serve three years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of corporal punishment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
-" 17 TT IN THE HIGH COUPT OP TAiTZITIL AT 17JIZA Appellate Jurisdiction CILiIPLL I.PPEIL NO. 205 )jr 1970 AND 206 ) (Ofiginal Crininal Cc. so No. 372 of 1969 of the district court of Bukoba be:ore S. 0. Unozurunba Esq.,Senior i1esiO..cnt Maistrate). 1. P1LICIJTG0DliEY, and ) .ICfIEIJiNTS (aIGIi1•i ACCUSED) versus TUP iEI'UELIC • • * •.. •. •,•. • • .ESPONDT(O.iIGINIJi IiOSECUCL) CHAIIGE:— 1st count Bur glary c/s 294(1) of the encl Code; and 2nd count - Stealing c/s 265 of the Penal Coda., JUIIENT Kfl!IICHA, J. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence'. The two appellants in this case were convicted of 10urg1aij and stealing and were sentonc cci to 4 years inprisnent each for the burglary and to two yocro inprisonnent each for the stealing, sentences to run concurrently. I see no Lierit in any of the appeals against conviction'. There was no dispute that the caoplainans house was burgled and a. lot of property stolen. ' Soiaa of the property stolen was found in the possession of the appellants a few clays after the burglary and I have no doubt that the doctrine of recent possession was properly applied against the appellants. Their appeal against conviction on the two counts is therefore di :iisse d. The appellants ore first offenders and young and although I agree with the trial uagistrate that the off enc is prevalent in the Bukoha district and reauied' deterrent sentences I an of the opinion that the fact that they are first off ènders should have been considered in thci± favour in passing sentence:' For the above reasons, their sentence on the first count is varied and substituted with one of .thrce yeaxs inprisonnont. The resiflt of this appeal is that the appeal . agcarst conviction is. diaiissed but the appellants will now serve a substantiro sentence 0± 3 years inprisonnent and 24 strokes of corporal punishnent. Delivered in Court at Mwanza on this the 15th 19700' JUDGE 15/7/70'..