19831101 TZHC Moshi

itAA

APPELLANTE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.236 OF 1978 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE N047 OF 1977

OF THE DISPRICT COURT OF MOSHI AT MOSHI BEFORE M.U.J. MINJA ESQ., DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAPHAEL CJ-aLPL . , , ...................... . . . . . . . . . a IPELLAJ.T (oRIGmAL ACCUSED) versus THRL-UBLIC ............ ...RESPONDENT (ORGINAL PROSECUTOR) JU B GMEN.T Before: Maganga; J. The appellant was convicted of bffice breaking and stealing and he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. The facts found proved by the trial court were that the appellant was an office massng?r at the Tangar'iyika Planting Company (T.P.C.) laboratory and his dutihs inc1tded opening and shutting the labora.tory'doors and windows. A motocycle belonging to the Gompany was being kept in the laboratory.: On 12th February 1977, which was.a.Saturday, the motor—cycle was, kept in the laboratory but when the laboratory was opened on Monday 14:th Fe'bur 1977 it was found missing. It was then discovered that five louvre glasses had been removed from a window to create an opening for the thief to gain entry into the laboratory. The thief was then able to open a door from the inside and to take out the motorcycle. The motor cycle has not been recovered to—date. It was also proved that the removed louvera glasses were examined by a finger print expert and the accused.S finger prints for both hands were found on all the five sheet. , The appellant's defence was that his finger prints were on the jpuvre blades because he

had to press the blades to close the windos since the window clOsing mechanism was defective. :' . ' 2 0 He admitted to have been the one who closed the door and windows on the Saturday after the motrLbycle had been taken into the laboratory. He was öonvicted benause the tria1nagistrate held thEt the presence of appellant's 'finger prints of both hand' s-on all the five removed louvre glasses was not consistent with appellants explanation of how the finger prints came to. be. th,e.rei The appellant, howsver 9 still profess his innocence. LLLTJ-i-'-' YVJ'4' I thinI tth.e ]entriI sow àstrate correctly - -held that the apellan -b"s ±ingerprints would not have been on all\th,ive louvre. €lasses found removed from the window had he only pressed the glasses to close the window. Certainly he could not have pressed each of the glasses to close the window in view of the machanism of a louvre glass frame. When this fact is considered with the evidence that the appellantts finger prints were not detected on any of the louvre glasses remaining on the same window, the circumstancial evidence against him eft, no doubt on his participation in the theft of the motor-cycle. He was thus properly convicted and the appeal againt conviction is dismissed. MGJ i

JUDGE \ 1/11/83 RMB/lk