19890926 TZHC Dar es Salaam

... Ih 'l'liL HIGH CuU i<T <JB' '.I'l-i.J',LJ,J~ L-l r1.n•.r.;L1.,l-iT.i; JU.i:<I~vlC'.L'ION Hiu11 CuUHT CHI~I~hL h~~~hL NL.103/J9 v.tdGII\J.H.L CHirvilN;..L . Cal:JE Nli. 30 CJF l 9Ll9 UF 'l'Hb .ulS'l'.t.lCT CuUl:{T vF l\.ILOMBLi-i.O J..:1S'ri<ICT 1-tT IFi-1.Kid:U. J. IviU01lUMLU0I, ,t;S",,;,., PlUNCH,AL i.,ISTRICT M.t,GISThl-i'l'£ ii.l!.;F'u1-1b: VENii.NCB b IMbh ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ii.Pl:' ELLitNT (Uricinal 1-1.ccused) versus .. 'nlli UNIT.t;;i., lllii:'Ul3LIC •••••••••••••••••••••••• RLS:l'ON1ENT (OriGinal Prosecutor) 1<UlHi.JviA, J ~ V.!!iN1-i.NC,t; SIJ.lllH was convicted of receivin 0 stolen property c/s 311(1) of the .1:-enal Cocle. lie ho.s appe&lecl to· this court against both the conviction and sentence. I allowed this appeal on the hearinc date ~ncl now tive reasons for the decision. 'l'he appelJ.ant was a trau.er ut Ti-1.z'iJ.,,.RA Station market_, Ifakara. H€- had at the maiket aGreeu to buy paddy from three people. The acreement was entered into in the presence of witnesses. This padu.y was later delivered at his home. The three people thut sold the paddy to him were later atrested_and ~harGed with burtlary and stealinc. The solt paddy was sai~ to have been a portion of the property stole~ from the I . burgled house: Home for the mentally Hetarded children-at Betrehem Centre, Ifakara. These three wer~ convicted.is charged. In convictini::; appellant VEI~1d~C./i: SIM131-,, th8 learn0od trial magistrate 'I stated:- 11 • • • 1-i.s this c curt has alre&.dy found that the accused was found with stolen paddy the question is whether he has u offered a satisfactory explanation that he neither knew nor had re~son to qelieve th&t it had been stolena ••• On the evidence there were reasons for him to suspect th&t the p~dcty miGht h&ve been unlawfully obtained. In answer to the 1st accused. 1 s question clurin:,:; cross-exami- nation he &dmitted (that he) had not as~ed them where they ~ot the pau~y from anJ y0t he di~ no~ tell this court· why. a[ain when he was questionud by the.coµrt he admitted to (have) not bou6ht any p~uuy from any of the accused - 2 - rtfter all why ~i~ the uccus~d take it to his home but not at the market o ' 1 Mr. SenGuji, le~rn~d Atate attorney ~id not support the conviction. He submitted that there was ample evi~ence that the ap~ellant h&d bogt,ht the pau.c;_y in question from some people~ · Not in 1_, that paddy was a common commodity in-Ifakara, he went on to submit that the appellant's approach in not askinc whether the paddy was stolen 1 or not was re&.sonable. I ace epted. these submissions as havin5 been full of merit. I woulJ only add th&t the fact the paddy in question was also sold at a m&rket plece and in the presence of witnesses adds credibi~ity to the position that the subject matter of the business transaction had not been stolen property. That delivery was done not at the market pl&ce ·but at the appellant's home is neith0r here nor there. We could speculate why this was ~one; it C(uld have been for storaBe pµrp6see but it certainly can not with justification be reEtd as si:...,nifyine knowleu.i:,e or even suspici0n on the part of the appellant that the paddy th.sat had been bou 0 ht had been stolen • .i!'or reasons outlined above, l allowed. the appeo.l, quushea the conviction an~ set aside the im~oseu senten~e. I further ordered the immediate release of thi appellant from ~risons unless he was b~inr lawfully held on other matters. I "- \ YAHY;.;. RULllihA JUlA.1E 26/9/89 Coram.: Hubama, J. :Parties absent. Reasons for the judgment delivered. '\ y ;;.l{Y J.. .HU'.L.;1-,.Mll JU.uGt li1-u< ~S 81-,Li-ui.M .. , ... "II:.