19830801 TZHC Mbeya
The identification of the appellants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant did not explain how she identified them at night and there was no corroborative evidence regarding the stolen clothes.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19830801 TZHC Mbeya
- Parties
- Appellant: Sihira s/o Sguland; Appellant: Ntula s/o Semea; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 August 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Identification Evidence, Appeal Procedure
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sihira s/o Sguland
Appellant
Ntula s/o Semea
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the identification of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt
- 2 Whether the conviction for robbery with violence was safe
Ratio Decidendi
The identification of the appellants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant did not explain how she identified them at night and there was no corroborative evidence regarding the stolen clothes.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- conviction quashed
- sentences set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Ii Th TILE RIGH Cc OF TNZALIfi AT I.BFJYA ALflT LATh JURI SuCTION RAGI.STRY CRBoI1LiL iiFLL:L NO. 37 OF 1978 c/f. Cr. App. ho.39 of 1978 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CSh 140.146 OF 1977 OF THN JISTRICT COURT CF iTYA JISTIUCT LT IiBdYA Before: T. M. Li. Kisugujila, D. Magistrate. SIIIRA S/O SGULiiNJ) ...................... APIELIJANTS NTULA s/o SE!IEA ) VLRS[J S THE IILPUALIC ..... ........................BiL3FONDNT CUARG1, Robbery with violence c/s.285 and. 286 of ihe Penal Code.. Cap.16. •flPiG• ui - iRA, J.: The appellants we chc.red oi:t1: fo: cobberf. It was stat.e that during the night of 2/:,/77 two (ntered the complainant .(P )A.3)'s house. They had pistols. They demanded money. Ther was no inoney They tók clothes and went away. Later the complainant roorted the robber,y to the Police Station. She said she recognised the two men as the two appellants. They were chà.rged accordiiigly. In their defence the denied that they robbed the complainant. They r re convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment each. They now apeal. Their appeals have been consolidated. As usual the issue was that of identifica ion, The complainant (P01.3) said she identified the two appellants. AS it was night and she did not say how she managed to identify them in those conditions, and being th only wi -iess in this respect, the identification was not proved beyond doubts. As for the identification of clothes fousd in their position, I find that there were 8.1.c1aijos and it was up to the : Dsecution to rao.lt the despute by bringing clear evidence (such as marks) oL identificatiçn 1, This was not done. The learned Counse.. for the Republic did not support ihe *onviction. I allow the appeal o. both appellants. I quash their conviction, st 'aside their sentences and order their release unless tieAd for other lawful causes. t Ybeya, ' P. 1st 4ugu.st, 1983 " JEJDcL