20100309 TZCA Tanga

'.' ' i . . . .... :. .-:, i . i<.: •· ... . . .. · . IN THE COURT . OF APPEALOF I TANZANIA i I

ATTANGA l . (CORAM: MUNUO, J.A .• MSOFFE. J. A. And KIMARO, l. A.) .:,.l I · CRIMINAL' APPEAL'.NO~ 20 OF 2009 SALEHE ALLY . . ·.. · ·'. .. : . . ••••••••••• i ■:~ •u• ~ ~ ·;::J:~~;· .·. - I :ii. . .· . ~-.................... i ■•

APPELLANT . THE REPUBLIC .............•..•.......1............................... RESPONDENT 111 I ; I (Appeal from the decision ~f the High Court Gf Tanzania .... ,/,·at T~nga) . . .. . .· I ' 1 I . . · :·; ., ·{Teemba-;,l.l I . . · ;· · ; i dated the 27th dai of October, 2008 .' .m · Criminal'Api>eaf No. 54.of 2007 ........ _, _,_ AT, fANGA_ --- .. , .. . . -------1------- . , -~-, ... ...::..lUDGMENT,OF,THE COURT.Ji...:....:.. . .:. ... '. ~ •• • • , · '.•• ,• • , , • •. I, I • , . ·.;' ,• . I I ' . '' . ' I -·,~, ~. r ,r,01!-:.•A.i, r-!r·. I •• ,. • ' 8 & 12 March, 20'10 . • • • 1r \ ' • ~ • 1, • " • • • _; • • . ~ J a! ._ II " r • ,. • , MSOFFE, J.A.: • :1 . . __ ..__Vf R-~US __ The District Court of ·Tanga ·· (Kadasso, RM) convicted the appellanf Atr1~?/Jft~ri1;J~B-j~i£~1~~fllrnr~fi~t~ltn°r2f . . ·• -: Is1"tn7ci''286 of the !I . i ,I Penal Code as amended by tttle!!!~ieyant provisions of Act No. 6 of I,I :i 1994. Consequent,rllet'WaS7mfnte~CeCi:l:Q'1fn'eisfattory thirty years .. t ., ' 1111 ·• I . · ' ·- f. . 1 ' 07 . I term of imprisorime·~f Wgg·~g,QJ~ ~!.:Bfefer'fgcf·a· fkst ap'peal to the .... ·- . I Hi~h Court at Tanga (Teemba,),}Jhere he was unsuccessful, hen~e I '' I this second appeal. -- At,the.-heanng.~of. the appeal he appeared m - . j I, I. ' I I I I \ ·---:-- t -.. -. I .. ,· . . ' . ' ,. . . 1· . I I . ' - . - .... · __ J j_ .. . . ' i II

; person. The respondent-:·Republic{-was represen~ed by Mr. Samwel I I Lukelo, learned State Attorney·~:-;{::\iL:\:_,:f,:__ :·: - ,·':. -· -; : ·. · ·- We wish to observe from, ~he outset that Mr. Lukelo did not . . . . . . . . . ..... : ... '~-:~:: -~ ;., . .. :..,-,) ..· •: ., ., , ...' ·': .. . . . . . . ··•) .. -. . reasons which will em·erge.-he·relinder.---. _. · · .... PW3 Mohamed Kilo Kagoma: testified and t9ld the trial District 1 --- · -- --·--- - ·•---~~--1-- .... - - ·· · ·· · ·· -· I . , I Court that he owned, and presumably still owns, a Toyota motor car • I ' . • • ·.·. •. •• .. ,: .. ,,;• ,: , . . ':•!I. ,,,, ••, I • • •,' ,• , i . ·.• • . with registration· numb'efTAP\78~~ic:orf1.6/5/2003 he entrusted the car : I Ii ; to the appellant. Apparently the a~pellant was a drlver cum mechanic. 1 , .. . ••·~•· •• •~-•·1 • 1.... . I His instructions were to check the car and retilirn it to PW3 on .. .,,. l .. _...,~t...:,:J,~ ·irorr1! 1.;)1_; V\..,L.J....:L.-,.1:-.J ... i,l. ~ .Ip " ' • • • ' , •. • , • • : • , , ;• •; , • . • . • ,• t\ , ; , '' ' \ • , 1 t , I • ' , : , , • • , ' 17/5/2003. · He did not ·-do so. , the meantime~ on 18/5/2003 at . . ~ l around 7.00 a.m. PWl Nuru .Hassan Selemani was riding his motor . . .h r. .' .•r';r., !I . I' cycle along Sahare area in Tanga where he was ·a~bushed by bandits who had_;•patkednadl:altlf' l"<>9,6t:aa1erOllii'<'rriakE!

·W~ich iwas ciwhite, ·in colour. The bandits threatened to shoot him with a \pistol while one of I :I. them stabbed him. with a, knife{!. I~nthe~,pr:ocess,. the bandits robbed . I I, • I him of his Shs .. 2,100,000/,-:-.nan~.l-disappeared ~withr-the .taxi in issue. . . . : . . ! . On the same day, PW2 C1794 D/Cpl. Shaba~i found the car ~ I ! ..... ,_, ----,,-y· -- . i .•. . . . . .' - ~. I.. .... '., ~ ., • , .• . . ••.. , ~ l ", ·1. I. 2 ! .. . ···t--. ·---~J···-· ... . -, .: ! ... : ,;- .; .. . - . . ,,, - •,....J.......;...~_,_,..,,J . r. ~-.:,. :. _.:_ -_ '.' ·,. "·'· .... ' . • . 1 · •· ____j . ----:-· -- . . abandoned at Sa hare at a place that was not too i far from the scene where PWl was robbed, .of_ h_i~-- ~.-~·--' . . . ,... _.•.· . .·•·•,.-·(·:•"'" mo_ney. . PW2 !towed . the car to :..:.·~> ..:~ .:-~·. . · ·--.•-•··•··,.·• ·i· .. . ·:•~··.·,:.!:·~'>'.'·t~;:♦.··\ Chumbageni Police sta~io~ \','~~r3; f 3,)d,entiry~~ .it ~F be. his car that he had earlier entrusted to the app\ellant. After the incident, it was . I ' alleged that the appellant disappeared for a pedod of five months I .. -··· . :-:·· :..-.. / .....-.. ~-~---~,:t\.· :. . ~ ::.;_: .. ~--.. .. .I before he was arrested. . .,~ .... . . ' ·.. I i Although the courts below did not say so in sp many words, it is clear t() u~ thc1tJ~, ~~~~'l~~~l~~~~~'~D~~bJ~\ty,s~ri, t.he appellant both were of the view that the.

appellant must have bebn in the group of . ·..,. PVVi: \ii.t;j's, .robb"ed· of. hi~-:--rohey: . r-h/\J? pjv./rir ·.. hh ,.:.:.. i' ' bandits who robbed PWl of his money and disappeared in the car· i, J · I i which was eventually identified by ~W3. · .... ,.. ..... ~· ... · a p .1. , •. • , I 1..'.U_,_LU,~LI 1e, µ <xi dl.ll. ____ 1-:-\l Lt.:1-u if---,,'·""''~•... .. d ... : ..H .. I . . ' j : ·.' With<-1respect1-+the1Pevi~en~ee'(ffidreeordi ·aid1ihot1 !establish the. I . .. I ' I i 1 ' prosecution case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. To start ~ith, it_ i_s ~Y,!9,~t!b.9.~_P,lfvl,i,<!t~_<;>.!J<;IE!,rl~ifv. a_n~ of his assailants, · · - r • ,,•h- '7(' ()V-J ulril r,0i .--., rr, ,,.., - ·! includ!.n.9 th~ ~PP.~!~~nt. f~r- t,h.~t ,~-~tt~r.: . . ~YCTh~ri:nor~, . t,_e di~ n.ot. even _ ·t·n I !~ 1•t-f1·arrn- ,m~p1uttng'"tnm1rlal respo·ns161lrty"On jth0 ~tY)h!hn• !, '. . I mark the registration numbers, 1.?fl the run away! car (taxi). The evidence is also clear that PWS Zena Saidi was also at the scene at the -- ... ,• ,., ... · , U!;-JLJCLl-i- JV;•• . ' h V-1....-01::,...1s..,,m;ong.y_dn04(Jl~dlJ.JL:u: I •.;U I I', • · .. · material time. She too did not identify the bandits and the registration "-• l"uc.:l~· . . 'f":1ed .''by,:' cVt:-11Lua11y.. 1aent1 I PW'·:;, ·:J;••.'' ' . : ',. ' ' 1 .. I 3 ·' ·•h· -----·------· ' -- .. ·- .- -,-, - . ·::,·-:,-_, . '!' :._,;_ . _

. . - -. -·1 --·. •· numbers of the car in issue. We appreciate that these witnesses said · .. · · · ·:' ··0:-,- . . ,::{i,,;:,-;::~-·:·,:\·~,;:;~:Jt:;::,:t:;;::·:·: .:-_·,-\- \ .. - : _, ·, .·· · that the car was white in' colour~·; ::In'·our view;· in the circumstances of this case identification by coloul alone was nal sufficient. More '. ~ . 1 . positive evidence· 'of ta.·en~.ttfic~tib.;~.-;;;l¼a.·c:,'.t~·.heeaed-'i.fJ a:iiwiction was to . ., . . . I safely lie. -Appareritli nc(st1fh::e~id~ndlwas ·,, 'forthcdming in the case. .· I In the absence of evi~n::!f!-~entification it follows that the _ only other evidence was the allegation that the car abandoned at - . . . - -. - . : . :> ., _..._. r l· . . .. ·. . :.· - . . .. -.. Sahare was the very one that was earlier seen by PWl and PWS. That -· '. II , I might as well have been so. But in, the absence of positive evidence of 'I . . ,: , •• ; .._ • ,., ...,.; • .Lj • \..,.'~•• . . ... - ·---J..-~·-·- -· ' . identification by PWl and PWS it might as well be correct to say, as · . . . - -•---1 · 1...,01u:J1 'I'-'•·~·,. . d.i • .: I urged by Mr·. Lukela', tha(iwas :poss'ibie that ~his WIas·not' necessarily the same car that was r:I ~z~~~r,,~Y PWl and . i ~7~'1 I u was quite probable that the car was abandontd there under 1=ircumstances that - ; rs. had nothiAg to:.do_ rWithcthiS\ti:aSer:e. I _1, it-we nu I ,ca lion . l- ..[

v,i;_,\.,C- . " ,u' ,. ,. In upholding the conviction'. the judge obs~rved somewhere . ; -- L' .•. ' \;: u ::, i... •.• _ ... -~ I ---•-·. I ,: I ' ; ,.- - r - -·-.·-· I , 1' I I thus:- ' ..•. , ·.JV. . j, 1__,,1UL ;lt' 1 0 I ' ' ' ' . • 1...... ._.::-'-~,._: {\._i_ · - · , .. :, • • '•• I, , •t • ~ , •_' 'I. i • • I • • • I I , , , ,t : ,\/ I I ·-·•- ------1- .' i --- -- . 4 •,.I•;• . ·i' ,-! ,. ••. ' •• ' •'1 \• The appellant's behaviour after the robbery also raised eyebrows . as he went ...... ·.. ·-·•,:...;..:;.. . .~ .... , missing . . \ . and was ~"';- . ,:,: -... ' . . arrested five months after the incident. With respect, this observation was not necessary. In an ideal case, an accused person •is convicted on the strength of the prosecution case against him/her and not otherwise. In the justice of this case the appellant's behaviour after the incident was not a material factor. In this case, it was quite possible that the appellant disappeared for reasons which had nothin·g· to.do with the robbery in question. In our understanding and appreciation of the evidence as a whole, one thing is evident to us. There was very strong suspicion .•.... : .. ,1,., ,.,1.J:a~.:J.Vcil1Ull--Wa·s.. 110L-flt:;()..:SSu1y,.-jj,,,., ''" . . against the appellant. But suspicion, however grave, is not a basis for . _ 1 , , .... · · · · .. ·1·• ••( ·t·eo· ·o· r1..··,. •;-1L!v:.J1.·~•1~··\..,L,

llii'--".•- •·· t;11ri ct·r·1':-- ~•··.:J_ ~L 1· • (,,i-~·\,.,11•{.:...·_.·j:.Ji\_,_,·,._;~-:....t.~ 0 ,11t 1 i ,·1· · ·· r· !.. ...,;,·1 a conviction. For the above . . reasOl'.1$,_~ we~'. allow the. appeal, quash the conviction and set _aside· the ·.sent~.ncet: -J"he appellant is. to be released . . ' i from prison unless lawfully held. ' 5 . I, . . . t:· ~-~ (-1 . ,, ;l ·r! ·.. .. :! _.__ . . ,,· _.. , ..___·, •.·. :,:.:_rj _.., , .. · • ---1-···-' I -- 'I. DATED at TANGA this 9th day _of March, 2010. ·· · · · ·. ,,·.r:,/,,'c'\}<t}fS+tt> ·•· · • ·':: ·., ·. :, ! t ,! _ E. N:'~UNUO · · · · · ,-•-:---'•lUSTICE"0f·APPEAU ., , ·., ·· ·W•t,\t{i_i;~. r\t,•• ·· ·. · . J.·H.'~SOFFE

JUSTICE OF APPEAL . n : ;. I . 'J! · N.. p/-"1IMARO 1 . .

JUSTICE OF APPEAL .· 1·-,,· .· '·' -I ! ·~ : . I I certify that this is a true cop~ of the original. : :,t '' .,. . ' -- (i · i•· .\ E;·":NJ.. ~- UNLJO · i .. J: · ~- > •.< ' ' /. 1fY".7; ,r i\1 I ( . N. ~HUS!)

DEPUTY REGISTRAR . _ I;, \, . . _, .i : I\, I I.I, 1[1...,,: I • ·---,y,~TTi'Ft,;rlr,: 'J"ff:fl"if"~,rf·; . r - .., . '"'~:-.1 , :·~ • - , • ··•-·· '\ i • ,,: i,,;~'-• , ~-<'.' I' "l,, . i ':;~ . -~ . ' i ! -:1, '' '-~" ' if, \►,' ,·• :: ~; :_ ' . I ' .' '•• 1' .. , . ' .. ,._ "!. ; .. · :, '. . . 6