19821014 TZHC Tabora
The appellant was found in possession of property recently stolen and failed to provide an explanation, justifying the conviction and sentences.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19821014 TZHC Tabora
- Parties
- Appellant: Salumu Gereranya; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 14 October 1982
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Theft, Possession of Stolen Property, Sentencing
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Salumu Gereranya
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for burglary and theft was proper
- 2 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant was found in possession of property recently stolen and failed to provide an explanation, justifying the conviction and sentences.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- sentence on first count confirmed
- sentence on second count confirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
J IN THE G. CCULiT CF TANZANI! AT TJJCRA APPELLATh JUIUSDICTION HIGH COURT OPTh.:EJ;1 APPEAL NO 199 OF 1979 ORIGINAL CRIL..I1JAi, CASES NO 35 OF 1978 OF THE DISTRICT OCUAT OF LASULU DISTPLCT AT KASULU Before: . M.P. i. iU?CNGOE, Esq., 1 District Nagistrate SALUMU GERERANYA:0 ...APPELLANT Versus THE REPUBLIC:0e000 .... RSpONEENT CHARGE: 1st Count: Burglary c/s 295 of the Penal Code Cap. 16 Vol. 1 of Tanzania revised law. 2nd Count: StealinE 61 s 265 of the Penal Code Cafl. 16 Vol.1 of Tanzania revised law. G h E. N T CHIPETA, J. I entirely agree with the learned state attOrney that there is uo merit in this appeal. The appellant anc his three colleagues were found in possession of the sto1n property within a few days after the theft. They utterly failed to give an explanation as to how they came by that property which the complainant sufficiently identifie to be part of the property stolen from his house in th cciacof the burglary. As for the sentences, that in respect of the first count was the statutory niniuD, and that in respect of the second count which, inciOentally, requires confirmation by this Court, was by no reans excessive. It is accordingly confirmed. In fine this appeal is hereby dismissed in, its entirety.. . / Tabora . ik/io/82 C