19710825 TZHC Arusha

t C-t_t7 TLL -3 .. . TN THE RICIJ C tlitT TMZMIA AT A1 UI4 PLL&i 1t1.'DItTI3N CiMIAt A' CtIL N. 176 07 1971 Ot41G1NA iUIZUi Ci ). 741 OP 1970 OP THE DIPBXCT C)L.IiT ? K 'ISTRICT AT KJ1OGI Before J.S. Mwai, Bag, District Metstrate SMILE LOIWAG.A ,.....,....,... A1L.ANT/ACCt3CDNO.3 versus THE.1i.1'tTIdC ................... (fl?RGB: Cattle Theft contrary to section 268 of the Penal Code. Cap. 16 Vol 1 1 or the Laws. J U _r:0 9 E R P PAT1L, Ag. J. ••- This is an ajpeal agairict conviction for the offence of Cattle Theft. The apo1lant was among the three accused persons charged before the trial court but the first and second accused were acquitted by the trial moietrate and this accused was convicted for this offence and to trnprieoned for 3 years. The Wemorn1um of J&pea1 by the appellant states that he met a person on the way and that person was hidin a cow and when a bus stopped the man holding the cow with P. rope ran away while be stood there and people came and arrested him. In his Meoranthnn of Appeal he said that if he was a thief be had enough time to run away whan the bus stopped. The learned State Attorney submitted that the only evidence against the accused was of 7W 1 at the tn.

1. This witrieao said that he saw the third accused, the apel1ant and another man who was holding and leading a cow with a rope and when the bus stopped the other man who was holdtnr the cow with a rope ran away and appellant wantod to run away but was arrested. The appellant in bis defence said that he was going to hic borne when he cet somebody on the way. He bad a cow and while they were walking together the bus eaae and stopped near them and the pereon hold- ing the cow ran away while he just stood and people came out from the bun and arrested him. The 1 arned Sttto Attorney submitted and said that the only evidence to con7iot the appellant in this offence is the evidence of 7W 1 which was accepted by learned trial magistrate. The siplanation of forod by the appellant was not accepted by the learted trial risgiotrate who f und it insufficient and therefore rejected it. It would appear that the appellant's axp1aiation wan ro.jooted by the trial magistrate, however, when rejectine the defeoco of the appellant he said in his judgment that the appellant has not given any explanation as to how be possessed the cow. This is a material contradiction and the evidence appears to be insufficient an& inconclusive to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is not for the accused, appellant to prove his innocence but it is for the prooccution to prove the case beyond reasonable ot't.

The evidence as it is on record is to sy in1 far short to prove the offence beyond reasonable dou t e€aiziet the appellant who has given explanation which appears to be very reasonable and as be stated in his Memorandurn of Appeal it supports his aubsiselone that he had all the cbancen to run away when the bus stopped but he did not. . . . . . . ./2. . . 2 - The Offerice t3 a verioug Ona to r wtt a puniehment is elao vy .1rom ovtnø on roord I think It it: unsaflo to 8110w this couic'ior to view of tht I •1iw the p ea2 and I crdor that the accupmd be set free forthwitt un,leas othowi*e 1awfWJy Arusha - 25/&'71 PAT!J) A. J U V C jtt