19890313 TZHC Dar es Salaam

THE UNITED ::::B~UBLIC OF TMIZldUJ,. IN THE HIGE COU:1T OF '1:/,..\TZLHiiJ. £[£__ :Jli.l~ ~ 38 Si:.Lli.l.H .., J.PPELL!i.TE JU:.~J:::)ICTIOi'J HIGH COUi.lT c:~II:LiTi:.L J~l~';.?'Il,J:.L HO.J1/86 OlUGINJ1.L Cf~IMIW:.L CL3:C NO. 360 OF 1985 OF THE :i_1ISTiUCT CO"JRT C:F IL.l.Li:. ::)ISTIITCT i.T YJSUTU Before r--r. C:hacha,. Esqo, I~osidont I-iac;istrate PIUS liLLY a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • J.PPELLJ~NT ~,.0 r1g1na . . 1 J~ccusoc " 1) . versus THE UNITED REPUBLIC • • • • • . ... • • RESPOIJ:JENT ; ( Original Prosecutor) Chal:'f1e: Robbery with Violence c/s.286 of tho Pencl Code Cap.16 of th6 Laws. J U D G l-1 E IT '.f_:. MAPIGANO_, J. Tho appellant 1:ius Ally ue.s convicted of robbery with violence contrary to section 206 of' the Pennl Code by tho District Court at ICisutu. .Ho hns np:;_)ealcd against the conviction. The particulars ·of the offence ns set out in tho ch0rce sl10et Qlleeed that on J/4/85 nt about 3.30 hours nt Chnngc.nyilrnni villnge in.tho ICinondoni District of' Dar es Salnar:1 ReGion tho nppellan:t stole sevorc.l 2.rticlcs, nll v2.luod at shs .10 ,ooo/=, frora Theresia. ct/o.1:i.ntony nnd 2t or ii:ti·.1odiatoly before or ir.u::iedintcly after the. ti:71G of' tho stealing he used nctucl violence to the said Theresia in order to obtain or retain the property. It was not in disj_)ute that the of'fenco took place in thnt night in the· dwelling house of' Theresia

(P\l1) t Elf'ric12. (:i?1J2) nnd Yustina (F·JJ). iiccordinc to Thorcsin, tho robbery was corm:1i ttcd by n gc.11e of' o.bout, six persons who raided their house in thct nicht. • .•.... /2. \ • ... 2 - The appello.nt flat,lly denied any d.hvdlvei,1ont · in tho crir.10 ·and ltw set up an alibi in his dof'ehco • . On tho facts adduced by tho prosecution tho· caso ncniD.st the appellant rested wholly upon i?"J1 is nnd PU.3 's ovidcnco o:f idcntifa.cntion of the appcllnnt. On her part PU2 tolcl ti1e trial cburt that she dicl not iclont:i.f'y a.ny ·of t~1.e robb0rs •. Thero ,1tts no sugc;ostion tllnt F;J1 2nd 1:'"ilJ wore dishoncnt. So t~10 vitnl point for tho considcrction and decision by tho court whs the corroct*css of the identification of tho ~ppellnht by tho two witnesses. In that cohi-:.edtion i t should be pointed out· thnt tho two witnesses· 10.1.eiv tho appellant before the incident• Tho· appellant wns tl1.oir ncie;hbour at Changany'ikoni. Theirs wore, therefore, more·of' rocqg:nition than □ ore identi:fice- tion. Still tho court should a3=1-rays bear in .mind that i:1istdwo in recognition o:f even close rolntivos nro sor:1etimes onde. So even when a witness is purportins to rocognizo someone whor.1 I1e ·or she know's, tho court should warn itself of the special need f'or·caution bofoio:fincl~ng the accused rruilty in reliance on the corroctxK:,ss: of idGntificntion~ In his

petition of appeal the appoilnnt coraplains, in fine, thnt the trial magist.rnte did not cri ticnlly consider the circuntitnnces in which the identificntion cnme to be r.inde. There is substance in thct co1:1plaint •. Let us examine the c:lrcumstances. ·11.bout six bandits descended .upon tho house in the wee hours of tho n.i(s'ht, nnd. for all ,-ic lmow tho house ·wr.1s .in. comp~!3te darkness. The two witnesses stated thut one. of ' ·tho bandits was cc.rrying a torch, but tho evidence is silent on ,,thother ho over shone it. Tho ,d tnosses st2t0d that thoy . . wore roused •UP from :sl,cpp by tho commotion and thct they ~~COi3'llized•on0 of the voices ns thnt o:f the appellant. But PW2 who had as· good opportunity ns the two wi tnessos could not recognize any. And acqordinc to PWJ, sh0 l~ad hidden . . under a bed when the bahcli-ts entor0d hqr room. .... .,., ..... J - In my assossi~1ont it UGS roe.;!. 1°isl;:y to roly on tho ovic:.v,1co of' identification of tho t-:rn ui tnossos c I thin.It that he.cl t~:;.o loc.rnod raagistroto con.sic1o::cecl tho circur.1stm1cos r.1or9 clo::ioly ho would probably hnv? civon tho appollnnt tho benefit of' doubt c.nd acqui ttod hiD ~ Tho lonrnod r.1c.-:.{_;is tr2. to made ro:f0r0;1co t • to the nppollant's 11 spocinl rk 11 ioOo tho :fact that ilC l.S D. 11 011.0-cycd man" (his ric;ht oyo is porrn:montly closed~ tho eyelids having convorGocl

over the cyobnll) ~ However, thcwi tnoss c!icl not □ 011.tioi1. tho. t II special 1:1nrk 11 in thoiX' oviclcnco o I fool, :for the reasons I hcvo gi~on above, th□ t ......16 l. t,: unsnfo to let tpe conviction stnndo Accordinely, tho appeal is allowed, tho conviction is quashed -and tho sontonco is sot asidoe Tho appellant is to be dischar 0 od fro□ custody :forth- with i f he is not otherwise lawfully dotnincdo Dolivcrod., Appellant prescnte Miss I-Ciwanga :for the l"~cpublic. flo~j~ f ~:::;.- D ~ P ~ :VJ~j?IGANO 1JTH Mf,RCH, 1989 JtJiJGE