19920815 TZHC Mwanza

IN THE HIGII COURT OF TANZJu'\J"IA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Mwanza Registry) BIGII COURT CRIMINAL APPEilL NO. 110 OF 1991 (Origj.nal Criminal Case No"' 405 of 1990 of the .District Court of Mu.soma District at :Musoma Before,- N.P ..z. Cfl:IOCH/. Esq., Redident Magistrate) REl'J'.llTUS CHli.CIIA • • • • • \I I) I O C 0 • • u • • • • • APPELLANT (Original l..ccused) Versus THE UNITED REPUBLIC • • • o • • o • , • • • RESPOlfDENT • - •. • • (Original Prosecutor) Appellant~Renetus Cha.cha, was convic-l;ed of ·!;heft by public servant QQtltrary to section 270 and 265.of the Penal Codee He was sen·henced to five years imprisonmen-'c, m'l.de.r the ~nimum Sentenoe,s N;t 1912, · He :uow appeals _against both conviction and sen_tence• ~ ... Malarnsha, the learned state attorney who a;ppeared for the Republio suppor·~ed both conviction and s·entcnce, I • The facts of the case· would. seem ·i;o be as follows•- ,._ The appellant was a brnnch secretary ~ oum - Revenue colleo-'GOr of a Village called Baranga, _in Mu.soma,. Pa.rt of his duties were to -received development levy, and co_llect levy on livestocke Ile had, then, to remit all the money colleo·ted to District Council, Ac·!;uaJ.ly, he had to remit such money to ~J.r .LAme, PW3, the accotmtant of rnusoma. District Council. On 12/9/89,}'lr /J.oype GurusYa PW1, paid a suprise visit to the appellant. Tlie appeilant was not at his working place. He was sent fore He was asked to show his receipt books and the moneJ:7 he had collected• That is when the a;ppellant started to ~ 1 0 ' about whore he had kept the money. He told il.J.oyce G ~ a ;PW\ that the money- had already '.? een handed. over to Mr L ~ When, however, the police de·l.ective D/Sgt Evadiue -PWt,. accQsted him, ·the appellant oh~ed-the story and said that s~me of the money ho.d been kept at his. (appellanti s) home., 1-n.1en, still, the appellant was interrogated.,he informed t:.10 police that he was. going -2- to produce receipts to $how that Mr. Lima had. the money, but these :tteceiots turned up .to b~ ~ _receipts-. N:r Lima gave evidence, wbli.~1 -~he trial court believ;d, that he (Lima) was not the authe>J:' 'ot 'bhose receipts. So, the appellant remained numb, holding the baby, as it were.- , ti.t the trial;, the' appel.lant still insii:;ted that he had handed ov~ the money to Mr. Lima. ' 1..s. Mp Mala.mah.a., lea.:ru.ed state a.tto~tey suggested, tho conviction cannot be ~ssailled• The issue here, really, is one of credibility• As was stated by Onyiuke J,. in the case of }IM~e sm4 ooothe~ Y. R, • I • ., ~ ,P97N n.c.n. no 3031 il' iii a.ppellato court should not disturb the findings of fact by the trial court based on ve:rbeal testimony i.mless- it is ma,:1ifesJlil,y unreasonable" • ·Onyitike J, in that case quo~es with a,ppr·oval the oases.<tf • ...... Rj.,v, Ka:rie Mawji /f9.4i} 16 Et..Cl.. 117; ~cli I,Iwa.b;µsilo v .John M w ~ ,/J96i/ f4C,D• 59, but to 'm.an-tion only a fwa · , .,. . . It is true, the appellant has s"Golo;.1 this money• ·What of the sei-i-bence? The a.ppcll~t ·was a.warded five~eq,Xs imprisonment. ~1a.t sentence was not on. ·the high sid,e., ~A as a comment, -it appears ·there were several takings in this case• The different QOlloo'tions should have made different oou1-i-lis, (see the ease o! i Fabian Ma.ga.nga V R IJ96iJ :u.c.n 346). This app.eal is dismissed in its entirety• ., .• I _;..:;.. ~ ~ ·f~ I I if ···1 J. E. c.