CRIMINAL APPEAL NO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAM SUB REGISTRY AT DAR ES SALAAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32045 OF 2024 (Arising from the Judgement of the District Court of Ubungo (Hon. T.G. Barnabas, SRM) in Criminal Case No. 18539 of 2024 dated 27th September 2024) ________________________ STANLEY MUNGUATOSHA…..………………………….. APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC…………………………..…..………………...RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT Date of last order: 17th February 2025 Date of Judgement: 19th March 2025 MTEMBWA, J.: In the District Court of Ubungo, the Appellant was arraigned for the offense of grave sexual abuse contrary to section 138C (1) (d) and (2) (b) of the penal Code, Cap 16 R.E 2022. It was alleged that on 22nd March 2024, at Urafiki Secondary School within Ubungo District in Dar es Salaam Region, the Appellant sucked the breasts of a girl aged fifteen (15) years old (name withheld) for sexual gratification. For the purpose of the appeal, I shall refer to the victimized girl as “the victim” or “PW1”. 1 The Appellant resisted the charge. Consequently, the prosecution paraded five (5) witnesses and tendered no exhibits. The Appellant relied on his sworn testimony and tendered no exhibit. Having evaluated the evidence adduced during hearing, the trial Court was satisfied that the Appellant had committed the alleged crime and proceeded to convict him as charged. The trial Court then sentenced the Appellant to serve twenty (20) years imprisonment and pay the victim the sum of Tanzanian Shillings 1,000,000/=as compensation. Dissatisfied by both the conviction and sentence, the Appellant laid before this Court the following grounds of appeal and I quote in verbatim; 1. That, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and facts by convicting the appellant based on the evidence of PW1 (victim) whose evidence was highly improbable/ implausible, incredible and unreliable to warrant the appellant's conviction as she unreasonably failed to report the offence immediately to any of her fellow students or teachers around the school. 2. That, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the appellant without drawing an inference adverse to the prosecution for failing to tender in Court the PWTQ. 2 3. That, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and facts by failing to observe, consider and determine the unexplained delay to arraign the appellant from 25.03.2024 to 05th July,2024 the omission which implies nothing but a mere fabrication and/or creates doubt in the prosecution case. 4. That, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact to convict the appellant while the evidence of PW3 and PW5 did not link each other as whether PWI or PW5 reported the alleged offence to PW3 the omission which destroy the credibility, truthfulness and reliability of PW1, PW3 and PW5 against the appellant. 5. That, the learned Magistrate erred in law and facts by convicting the appellant when PW1 (victim) did not state in court why she (PW1) and PW5 did not inform any of their parents, relatives e.t.c about the alleged incident for three days the omission which cast doubt in the prosecution case. 6. That, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the appellant without sufficiently consider the defense evidence the omission which resulted to a serious misdirection amounting a miscarriage of justice and constituted a mistrial. 7. That, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact by convicting the appellant in a case where the prosecution evidence adduced in court was insufficient of proof beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant was the actual culprit as charged. 3 When this matter came for orders on 17th February 2025, the Appellant appeared in person while Ms. Asiath Mzamiru, the learned State Attorney, represented the Respondent. By consent, the parties agreed to argue this Appeal by way of written submissions. Having reviewed the records, I am satisfied that the parties adhered to the amended filing schedule. The Appellant has condensed all seven grounds of appeal into one ground styled as follows, and I quote; That, the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and facts by convicting the appellant in a case where the prosecution evidence adduced in Court was insufficient of proof beyond all reasonable doubt that the offence was committed and that the appellant was the actual culprit as charged. Taking the podium, the Appellant submitted that in criminal cases, the prosecution's duty is twofold: one, to prove that the offense was committed, and two, to prove that it was the accused person who committed it. He was fortified by the decision of Maliki George Ngendakumana vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2014 (unreported). He added further that, however, it is the position of law that in sexual offenses, the best evidence comes from the victim. This position is bolstered in Seleman Makumba vs. Republic 4 (2006) TLR 379. On the contrary, the Court has always been warned not to rely solely on the testimony of a child of tender age or a victim of the crime to sustain a conviction in respect of sexual offense. It must be satisfied with the credibility, truthfulness, and reliability of such evidence. He cited the case of Mohamed Said vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2017 (unreported). Arguing further, the Appellant observed that the determination of credibility, truthfulness, and reliability of witnesses cannot be made in isolation of other pieces of evidence on record and the circumstances surrounding the case. He referred this Court to the decision of Shaban vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2000 (unreported), where having referred to the decision of Charles Kassim @ Kitobe vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2021 (unreported), the Court observed that the credibility of a witness can also be determined in two other ways, one; when assessing the coherence of the testimony of that witness and two, when the testimony of that witness is considered in relation to the evidence or other witnesses, including the accused. Based on that, the Appellant argued that in our case, the appellant's conviction was mainly based on the evidence of PW1 5 (victim). However, her testimony was barely incredible, improbable, implausible, and unreliable enough to warrant the conviction because first, the evidence on record shows that there were other students and teachers around the school compounds and that the offense was not committed in form three classroom where the victim together with her fellow students were doing the assignments. Second, the victim did not state why she did not shout/scream during the incident. Third, there was no evidence to show that the victim was threatened or promised anything for her not to reveal the crime. The nagging question is why the victim never informed her fellow students in form three classroom soon after the incident. Similarly, the victim never told her teachers immediately after the commission of the alleged offense. The appellant continued to note that PW2, a head prefect and other teachers were around the school, yet the victim never informed them of what befell her. Fourth, the Appellant questioned why the victim never revealed anything to her guardian or relatives about what befell her at school before telling PW5. Fifth, there is a glaring doubt as to whether PWI or PW5 went to PW3 to report the allegation against the Appellant because PW3 stated that she received the information on 26th March 2024 from PWI (victim). Thus, the evidence 6 of PWI, PW3, and PW5 creates doubt about who reported to whom. Sixth, the delay in arraigning the Appellant in court from 25th March 2024 to 5th July 2024 cast serious doubt on the prosecution case. The unexplained delay in charging the Appellant in Court implies that the matter was fabricated against the Appellant. Seventh, the Appellant questioned why the school administration did not inform the PW1's guardian/relatives about the incident. Further, the Appellant faulted the prosecution for failing to tender the handwritten statement by the victim before PW3. Lastly, he faulted the trial Court’s stance of not considering the defense evidence in the final judgment. He was fortified by the decision of Hussein Idd and Another vs. Republic (1986) TLR 166. Based on the foregoing arguments, the Appellant implored this Court to allow the appeal, quash and set aside the conviction and sentence meted against him. In rebuttal, the learned state attorney considered the Appellant's claims baseless and unfounded. He referred this Court to a well- established principle of the law that every witness is entitled to credence and must be believed unless there are good and cogent reasons not to do so. He cited the decision of Goodluck Kyando vs. 7 Republic (2006) TLR 363. As to whether the defense evidence was considered, the learned state attorney referred this Court to page 6 of the typed script of the Judgement, where the learned trial Magistrate considered the defense evidence. In conclusion, the learned counsel observed that to sustain a conviction on a crime like this, the prosecution must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused engaged in an unlawful sexual act of gravitation with a child with or without her consent. He stretched further that in sexual abuse cases, especially those involving minors, the victim’s testimony is crucial, but it should be corroborated where possible. In rejoinder, the Appellant almost repeated what he submitted in his submission in chief. He insisted that the prosecution evidence adduced during hearing was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the alleged offense and who committed it. He again implored this Court to quash and set aside the conviction and sentence meted against him. Having dispassionately considered the rival arguments by the parties, the question would be whether the appeal is meritorious. In doing so, I shall also be guided by the decision of Ahmad Omari vs. 8 Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2005, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Mtwara (unreported), where the Court observed that in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. This tallies with section 3(2) (a) of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 RE 2022. It follows, therefore, that a person is found guilty and convicted of a criminal offense because of the strength of the prosecution evidence against him, which establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt (see also John Makolobela Kulwa Makolobela & Another alias Tanganyika vs. Republic (2002) TLR 296). In determining this Appeal, I shall also seek the guidance of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Mapambano Michael @ Mayanga vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2015, where it was observed that the first appellate Court must subject the entire evidence on record to a fresh re-evaluation to arrive at a decision that may coincide with the trial Court or may be different altogether. Indeed, the Appellant was arraigned for the offense of grave sexual abuse contrary to section 138C (1) (d) and (2) (b) of the penal Code (supra). It was alleged that on 22nd March 2024, at Urafiki Secondary School within Ubungo District in Dar es Salaam 9 Region, the Appellant sucked the breasts of a girl aged fifteen (15) years old (name withheld) for sexual gratification. In Simon Masuhuko vs. Republic (DC Criminal Appeal No 56 of 2023) 2024 TZHC 6204 (26 June 2024), this Cous this to say; Section 138C of the Penal Code entails that for a person to be convicted of grave sexual abuse, he should have used his genitals or other body parts or any other person's body part, or an instrument on another person's body for sexual satisfaction. Grave sexual abuse does not amount to rape which includes sexual intercourse that should necessarily involve penetration. Grave sexual abuse falls short of rape in: that the type of act imagined under grave sexual abuse is not penetration but something less than that. When the victim is a person below 18 years, consent becomes immaterial. It follows, therefore, that the offense of sexual grave is committed by any person who, for sexual gratification, does any act by the use of his genitals or any other part of the human body or any instrument on any orifice or part of the body of any other person, being an act, which does not amount to rape. It falls short of rape because, under this type of sexual offense, there is no penetration but something less than that. Consent is one of the necessary ingredients of the offense unless the victim is below 18 years old, in which case consent is immaterial. 10 In this case, the parties agree to each other that in sexual offenses, the victim’s credibility becomes an essential matter for consideration. If the victim is coherent, consistent, and credible, the Court may proceed to convict, notwithstanding other corroborative evidence. However, the witness's demeanor is always within the monopoly of the trial Court. In Onesmo Laurent @ Salikoki Vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 2018, Court of Appeal at Moshi, the Court observed at page 12, this; ….. we are cognizant that in view of the inherent nature of the offence of rape or any other sexual offence where only two persons are usually involved when it is committed, the testimony of the complainant is very crucial and must be examined and judged cautiously. Indeed, in this context, we held, for instance, in Selemani Makumba (supra), that the best proof of rape (or any other sexual offence) must come from the complainant. Consequently, the complainant's credibility becomes the most important matter for consideration. The Court continued to note at pages 12 and 13, thus; If the evidence of the complainant is credible, convincing and consistent with human nature as well as the ordinary course of things, it can be acted upon singly as the basis of conviction - see section 127 (6) of the Evidence Act. As prefaced, the Appellant’s main complaint is that the conviction was mainly based on the evidence of PW1 (victim). However, her 11 testimony was barely incredible, improbable, implausible, and unreliable enough to warrant the conviction because, first, the evidence on record shows that other students and teachers around the school compound were not informed of the alleged crime. Second, the victim did not state why she did not shout/scream during the incident. Third, there was no evidence to show that the victim was threatened or promised anything for her not to reveal the crime. Fourth, the victim never reported the incident to her parent or guardians. Fifth, there is a glaring doubt as to whether PWI or PW5 went to PW3 to report the allegation against the Appellant. Sixth, the delay in arraigning the appellant in court from 25th March 2024 to 5th July 2024 cast serious doubt on the prosecution case and. Seventh, the school administration never reported the incident to the victim’s parents or guardian. As said before, in sexual offenses, the testimony of the victim becomes essential. The Court may proceed to convict notwithstanding other corroborative evidence having satisfied of the credibility of the victim and the reliability of the evidence given. It must be noted that credibility involves the issue of whether the witness appears to be telling the truth as he or she believes it to be. In essence, this entails 12 reliability, truthfulness and accuracy of the information given during hearing. After assessing the witness's trustworthiness, demeanor, and credibility, the information can be acted upon. However, demeanor is in the exclusive monopoly of the trial Court. In Salum Ally vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2013 (unreported), the Court stated; on whether or not, any particular evidence is reliable, depends on its credibility and the weight to be attached to such evidence. We are aware that at its most basic, credibility involves the issue whether the witness appears to be telling the truth as he believes it to be. In essence, this entails the ability to assess whether the witness's testimony is plausible or is in harmony with the preponderance of probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in the circumstances particularly in a particular case. The test for any credible evidence is supposed to pass, were best summarized in the case of Abbdalla Teje @ Ma lima Mabula Vs Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2005 (unreported), to be: (i) Whether it was legally obtained; (ii) Whether it was credible and accurate; (iii) Whether it was relevant, material and competent; (iv) Whether it meets the standard of proof requisite in a given case, otherwise referred to as the weight of evidence or strength or believability. 13 Indeed, I looked at the impugned Judgement of the trial Court and noted that what the trial Magistrate did was to summarize what was testified by prosecution and defense witnesses. There is nowhere he tried to assess the evidence of the witnesses who testified, especially PW1 (victim). Even for the sake of the argument that she spoke the truth, the reliability of the evidence and credibility of PW1 was not tested. PW1’s evidence generally does not seem to have passed the test of truthfulness and credibility. It is now settled that the evidence of the victim or child should not be taken as a gospel truth. In the circumstance, I am constrained to agree with the Appellant that the trial Court did not adequately assess the evidence of PW1. The question would be what proper recourse would be taken by this Court considering the circumstances. In Method Leodiga Komba @Todi & Another vs. the Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2021 (unreported), the Court said; Admittedly, the trial court did not completely consider PW1's credibility. This glaring omission, now a subject of appeal, as rightly contended by the appellants, was a flagrant violation of the trite position now that words of victims, particularly in sexual offences, should not be accepted 14 wholesome and relied on to found a conviction. This principle of law which is now common and has attained a respectable antiquity and is often referred to by the Court was pronounced in the case of Mohamed Said vs. the Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2017 (unreported), that the word of the victim of the sexual offence should not be taken as gospel truth but that such testimony should pass the test of truthfulness. In the instant appeal, the trial court did not, in its judgment, expressly state that it was in any way moved or believed PW1 as a witness of truth or credible. As would be discerned from the above quoted part of the judgment, it simply examined her evidence and held that it was corroborated by the testimonies of PW2 and PW6. As a trial court, trite legal proposition is that determination of credibility by demeanour is within its exclusive domain (See Yasin Ramadhani Chang'a vs. Republic [1999] T.L.R. 489). The issue of her credibility first featured in the High Court judgment. It is common knowledge that, even an appellate court may assess a witness's credibility by looking at the evidence on record. In Shabani Daud vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2000 (unreported).” (Emphasis mine) From the authority above, it is apparent that since this is the first appeal, this Court has a mandate to assess the credibility and reliability of PW1 even if the trial Court failed to do so. I will, therefore, evaluate and assess the evidence of PW1 (the victim). 15 According to PW1 (the victim), she was a form II student at Urafiki Secondary School by then. On 22nd March 2024, she was at school as usual. At the moment, Sir. Mlota required students to take chairs to classrooms, so he chased them. While running from him, PW1 passed by form III class, where the Appellant called her and gave her a task. She then had to continue doing the task given in the Form III class. Soon thereafter, Diana and her fellow friend came over and were too given a task to do. Thereafter, the Appellant went out. Having finished the task given, PW1 decided to leave Form III class. On passing by the Form II class, the Appellant called her and asked where she was going while the task given was not yet finished. She replied that she was going to buy a Banana and she had already finished the task given. The Appellant then required PW1 to buy him Banana. On return, PW1 entered Form II U1 class and the Appellant ordered her to sit on the chair to give her money. At that moment, the Appellant also took a seat. Thereafter, the Appellant held PW1 tightly while using his other hand to undress her T-shirt. The Appellant then started to suck PW1’s breasts. PW1 continued to observe that she told the Appellant to stop the harassment while calling Diana (PW2) for help. The Appellant then 16 asked if Diana was her friend, and she replied yes. The Appellant further asked whether Diana was her blood sister, and she replied no. She told the Appellant that Diana was his brother’s close friend. The Appellant then said; Mi nataka niingize kidogo tu, nikamwambia sitaki, akaniambia kama uko kwenye siku zako nikikuta umevaa pedi nakuacha ………Nilijua unanipenda kumbe hunipendi, akawa anachukua mkono wake ananibana kwenye mbavu na kuniambia mbona hubadiriki. ……..mama mbona hutaki kunipa utamu unaniacha mimi mwenyewe……. PW1 continued to testify that the Appellant then sucked PW1’s ears while trying to use his other hand to undress her skirt. The Appellant was successful in entering his arm and pulled down her tight. All the time, PW1 was struggling, and later, she managed to get out of the Appellant’s hands and run away. The Appellant remained with her Hijab (juba). It could appear that PW1 did not go away; she stood up at the door asking for her Hijab. Soon thereafter, the Appellant handed back the Hijab and gave her Tanzanian Shillings 200/= to buy him a Banana. PW1 went to Sister Pendo to buy it, but unfortunately, she could not buy any. She was afraid to hand back the money to the Appellant, and thus, she decided to go home. On the way, she met her friend Mwanvua, who advised her to go home via 17 Shikilango. While there, she gave the money to the needy people. Upon arrival at home, PW1 could not find her elder mother, so she requested her neighbor's phone to call her brother (PW5) and informed him of what befallen her at school. PW5 then promised her to deal with the matter the following Monday, 25th March 2024. On 26th March 2024, PW1 was called by PW3 (Headmistress) and required to write a statement. On 27th March 2024, PW1 was taken to Urafiki Police Station, where she was interrogated. From PW1’s testimony, the question would be whether the Appellant’s complaint that she was not a credible and reliable witness is meritorious. As per PW1, she struggled to get out of the Appellant’s hands while calling Diana (PW2) for help. When asked by the Appellant whether Diana was her friend, PW1 replied that she was her brother’s friend. After the grave sexual acts, the Appellant gave the victim Tanzania Shillings 200/= to go and him a Banana. She responded to the Appellant's order but could not buy one. Since she was afraid to return to the Appellant, she decided to go home. The evidence shows that the victim stays at Kimara Baruti. To start with, I have failed to grasp any reason why PW1 never 18 complained anything to Diana, whom she was calling when the Appellant sexually harassed her. According to the records, Diana (PW2) was in another close classroom with DW2 doing the task given to them by the Appellant. According to PW5 (head prefect), the distance between the two classrooms was 6 to 8 steps. A prudent person may ask why PW1 never screamed or cried for help. It is disturbing why PW1 never complained to any of her teachers, including PW3 or the student, soon after the incident. By any stretch of the imagination, given her age, one would expect PW1 to report the incident to her teachers, student leaders, or fellow students soon after the incident. But that was not the case. According to PW1, having been sent by the Appellant to buy him a Banana, she never returned; she decided to go home through Shekilango as advised by Mwanvua, whom she met on the way. It was not established easily if PW1 told Mwanvua about the harassment. It was very unfortunate that Mwanvua was not called as a witness. From the records, it is not clear when the incident happened; thus, it is difficult to know when PW1 left for home. According to Diana (PW2), she boarded the exact public transport with the Appellant at approximately 17:00 hours in the evening. That means PW1 had 19 already left by then. Given the distance between Urafiki Secondary School and Kimara Baruti, PW1 must have been home by 17:00 hours in the evening. According to PW1, having arrived at home, she did not find her elder mother. According to PW5, he was called and informed of the incident on 22nd March 2024 at around 20:00 hours at night. The question would be why PW1 stayed for such a period without telling anyone about what happened at school. The nagging issue would be why PW1 never reported the issue to PW5 at school soon after the incident. Since PW5 was a head prefect and PW1’s brother, one would have expected PW1 to report the incident to him at the earliest possible opportunity. As previously mentioned, PW1 never informed her teachers, student leadership, or fellow students after the incident. It is mind- boggling why she never told her relatives, parents, guardians, or as the case may be. Even for the sake of argument that she was not close to her family, the school administration never discharged such duty. The evidence is silent on whether the parents or guardians knew about the incident. Even PW5, who claims to be the head prefect and PW1’s brother, did not testify to have informed the family. In such circumstances, the complaint by the Appellant that the incident was 20 fabricated cannot be easily overruled. A witness's ability to name a suspect at the earliest opportunity is an all-important assurance of his reliability. In the same way, unexplained delay or complete failure to do so should prompt a prudent court to inquire (see Marwa Wangiti Mwita and Another vs. Republic [2002] TLR 39). In this case, the offense is alleged to have been committed on 22nd March 2024. The record shows that the Appellant was arrested on 27th March 2024, six days after the alleged incident. Besides, there is no evidence that PW1 was threatened not to divulge such information to anyone. In such a situation, the assurance of whether the Appellant committed the alleged offense is in jeopardy. It is hard to tell why there was an unexplained delay in arraigning the Appellant to Court. According to the prosecution evidence, the crime was committed at Urafiki Secondary School. It could appear that the same was reported to Urafiki Police Station between 25th March 2024 and 27th March 2024. PW1 was interviewed on 27th March 2024, the same day the Appellant was arrested. The record shows that the charge was read over to the Appellant on 27th July 2024 (four months after he was arrested). There was no explanation for the delay. Except for PW4 (an investigator), all other 21 witnesses came from Urafiki Secondary School. The nature of the evidence does not allow an inference that the investigation took about four months. Even if it was a case, the prosecution could have brought such an explanation into play by evidence. For this reason, the Appellant maintained that the whole story was cooked. In my opinion, an unexplained delay in arraigning the Appellant in Court created doubt in the prosecution case as to whether the incident occurred as alleged. In Ally Shabani Nzige vs. Republic (Criminal Appeal No 12 of 2021) 2024 TZCA 135 (23 February 2024), the Court said; The unexplainable delay, which is featured in the charge sheet is linked with the appellant’s defense story that he was once charged and acquitted on the same offense. It is therefore, our considered view that the delay in arraigning the appellant in court was inexcusable and unjustified. The same created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case which the appellant claimed was framed against him. Given the shortfalls indicated above, I am satisfied that the trial Court considered PW1's testimony a gospel truth. As indicated earlier, the testimony of the victim of sexual offenses should not be taken wholesomely without passing the credibility and truthfulness test. If this is left unattended, there is a danger of convicting and sentencing 22 innocent persons, thereby leaving the actual perpetrator free. Had the trial Court considered the Appellant’s defense that the incident was framed, it could have found that PW1 was not credible. In any case, the anomalies could have been resolved in favor of the Appellant. I am aware that every witness is entitled to credence and must be believed, as was nearly underscored in Goodluck Kyando vs. Republic (2006) TLR 363. However, there are exceptions where there are good and cogent reasons not to believe a witness. In other words, the witness's evidence should not be taken as gospel truth, but her testimony should pass the test of truthfulness. In Mohamed Said vs. the Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2017 (unreported), the Court observed as follows; We think it was never intended that the word of the victim of the sexual offence should be taken as gospel truth but that her or his testimony should pass the test of truthfulness. We have no doubt that justice in cases of sexual offenses requires strict compliance with rules of evidence in general and S. 127(7) of Cap 6 in particular and that such compliance will lead to punishing the offenders only in deserving cases. Deducing from the above excerpt, it is plain that there is no dispute that the evidence of PW1 in the case at hand was taken as gospel truth without passing the test of truthfulness. Considering the 23 circumstances, I am not prepared to agree with the trial Court that she was telling the truth. As intimated earlier, the victim's story is wanting. In my opinion, the trial Court misapprehended the substance and quality of PW1's evidence, which was relied upon to ground the conviction against the Appellant. Had the trial Court addressed its mind to these shortfalls or anomalies, it could have resolved otherwise. To that end, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and the sentence meted against the Appellant are hereby set aside. I order that the Appellant be released from the prison forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. I order accordingly. Right of appeal fully explained. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 19th March 2025. H.S. MTEMBWA JUDGE 24