19761030 TZHC Arusha

II' J?HE HIG. COLIIU1 OF TJ.ZAJIL \) V

AT ARUSHA

APPELLTL JIJIIISDICTION IIH COURT CRILNLL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 1975 0/P CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35/75 9 242/76 ORIITAL CRIMINAL CASE NO.701 O 1974

OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOSHI DISTRICTAT MOSHI BEFORE: N.L. MASA7E,Escj., District Magistrate SABAYANAILELE .... .. . ... ... LPrELLL.NT (Original Accusod) versus mt DTTT . . . - ...LLiJJ. ii.U.L)LJJ_L%J •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (Original Prosecutor) JJDG\ •1 fYAL1.LI, J . . . . . This is a cons lidacJ ppee1 of Oriinia1 Appeal 54 of 1975 and 242 of 976 in which the. appellants are Sabay .Nakle10 and Jnes d/o .Sindao. They had been jointly charged and convicted with one Faustin s/o Maenda who successfully appealed to this court in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1975.. At the trial of the .casb the said. Faustin s/o Maonda appearcdas the 1st accused, and Sabaya Mak1ele was the 2nd Lcousod whereas Agnes d/o Sindato was the 3rd accused. Tho facts of the case are well outlined in my judgeB1ent in Criminal Appol No • 35 of 1975 concerning Fausti'n. s/ Maerda. . The evidence shows that about two or three days a.ft.r.'P.W.2 's shop had been broken into and some clothes sto1Cñthbrcfrom, the 2nd accused was found wearing a shirt whichweo identified by P.7.2 as being one of the items .f•stolen:fronth.e.•shop; and soc ±-to - of gowns end lady's dresses were found insidc boxdf the 3rd accused which were also ide-_eitif ie6 by 3W.2 as eingaong the items stolen from the shop. . So the etral iscue in this case concerns the identifition of. t1e 6hirt, goin and other lady's

dresses.. The 2nd accisod - and 3rd accused at their trial denied any knowledge or.-coti.oction with the shirt, gons or lady's dresses The shirt was produced at the trial as exhibit J. the gowns and lady's dresses as exhibits B, 0, Dand E. P.VJ.2's identification of these articles was quite impressive. He was a tailor and the gowns and lady's dresses had been at his shop for him to make in accordance with orders and specifications of P.7.2's clients, details of which he had recorded in his client's register tendered as exhibit A. Then exhibit B. C and D were recovered, they still had the nanos of clients which 11 . 1W.2 had labelled on the gowns and dresses for identification purposes. With... ... . . V±th regard to tha .shirt tendered as exhibit J, P.V1.2 testified that the shirt was his and ho had tailored it hinsoif'. On the evidence, Ian satisfied, like the trial court, that tnoso itos wore sufficiently identified by P.W.2. The only reraaining point for consideration is whether the shirt (ithib±t J) viasfund with the 2nd. accused and whether the gowns and d.reses'in question wer.e found with the 3rd accused.. The 'eviftence adduced by. the proocution O1QVeS no doubt that th e :2nd ac ôuso d. was found. wearing thibit J under aiothor shirt on top, and that exhibits B, C, D and E as well as other iten' vver foun in the box of the 3rd.. accused.' The denials' nadé' by the 2nd.

and 3rd accused at the trial and repeated in their petitions of appeal are baseless except to the: extent that they are aimed at confounding the truth. The evidence clearly show:rbhat'both accused were found in 1st accused! s house by thesëdrch party and that the Aaccused, v who is the wife of the 1st accused produced and, opened her own box for inspection when requested to do '.,. The conviction for each accused is clearly supported by ,..the:prose'cution evidene.. Since the value of the property stolen exceeds shs.5,000/= the sentence of 5 years jail is the statutory i4ninum under the Miiümun Sentences Aoi 1972.. The appee,ls against Oonvictions and sentences are therefore di:snissed.in their entirety. (F. L.

JUD A Lelivec'ed. chis 30/10/76 at Lcsha in the presence of Mr. Kntunu, State Lttorn •" . (P L. N7L1ULI) , .FLN/MTPM. . ' JUDGE. , /