19760824 TZHC Arusha

"-'i • : IN THE HIGH COURT OF Ai. liT Ui IPIELLJTE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRL.INLL JI'EJL NO e 188 OF 1975 • ORIGINJL 01111 7I1`11 2L L CL.SE NO. 39 OF 1975 OF THE DIStRICT COURT OP LUSHOTO DISTRICT IT LUSHOTO BEFORE: N. TI. SErnOJA Es.., District. Listrato Ri'ILDHiNI OMJRI .,.............. ,...... .. AIELL/.UT (Original Lcbuscd) versus rnu tiT - TT1JT i-ri DtC7 T1V'1'T J.jjj.j. iLI. LLU.U..L.I , . . a a • * . • • a • a . a . . a . • • • , a L'UJ.LU.Li (Original cosecutor) JUDGMENT i.PTL.THi.TT, J. In the District Court the apollant was convicted of store breaking and stealing, c/s. 296(1) of the Pcnal Code. He was given the minimum sentence. Ho now appeals to this Court. The hop store of the complainant (F.Ll) was broken into during the' night and. five bags of sugar stolen. Shortly after day break P.W.l upon discovering the incident reported to F ..W .2 the ward cxc cutivo s ecrotaryo Together they searched the surrounding area. The foot prints of the thieves took thom to the neighbouring ton farm whore they found hidden one bag of sugar They decided to keep vigil on the area to see if anyone would come for the sugar. On the following.. .igi1i they saw someone approach and take the bag. rW.2 recognised him to be the aDpeltant, this because he flahod a' tordh t'him, and upon calling his name he abandoned the sugar-and d.isapearcd.. The complainant says he, too, recognised thu appollant although he did-not know his name. They did not find it necessary to follow him at his house that same niaht. it dawn they did, but the appellant was not mere. They followed him at anoJicr place where he was said to have gone. visitcd that place, followed by the complainant a little later'. 1.W'.2 upon finding the appellant there asked him to report at his office. However, as soon as the complainant showed up the appellant ran away' and the assistance of the militia had to ho sought to got him arrested, and in due course he was captured.. The appellant in his evidence admitted that f..W..l and P.W.2 net him and that the latter asked him to call at his T office. This ho promised to do Thter. For the time being however he took leave of th.cnl. Later ho came across them in a motor vehicle and at his instance it stopped. He did not however have anything to do with the theft. Both P.W.l and 11 .7.2 seem clear th.t that night they recognised the person to ho the appellant. Given the torch light I think they wore in a position to recognise that person. That . . . . . . . . . . T. -2- That they wore clear of his identity they did. not chase him and were content to follow him at his hous at dr break. is coiffirination that t1ier had not been mistaken the appellant ran away after sooin,' P.\V..l. The lower court believed, their evidence and. rejected the appellant's defence. To this it was entitled and I cannot justifiably interfer(- - In the ; . circuautancss of the case including the appellant's disappearance at thc siht of tao complainant, it was to be concluded thet the one bag of sugar was aiong the five bags stolen from that store and that the appellant had been the thief or on"'/Of th perpetrators. Lccordingly, the appeal is disnissed in its entirety. (:. 1{.JoNhTiIN) JTJDG-E. Judgment delivered in open Court at Jusha this 24th day of Lu.gust 1976. 4c1 (4 (P • M. JON.LTI-IIJ'T) PMJ/idT??f. JUIJCE.