19880928 TZHC Mtwara

Il:J T'".dC HIGH COURT OF TJJTZ.:.Hil~ , LT MTW!JU.. MP.OJLL.t.TIJ J1JJ.Ifill :'· ::;'rI(!£ CRIMINLL l:.PPELL uo:63 OF 1988 Oric;in0,l Criuinal Caso, Ifoo423 of 1987 of tho District Court of Mo.sasi District 2,t Mcs2.si B0fo:re: C~Ho Msar.1ati Esqo, P.Do Ma.gistrato VIC:JNT LUK.t.NGL oooooooooooob 1.1.PIBLLl:.:NT 'versus THC im'UBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Rubaoa, J. Vicent Lukanr.;a w2,s convicted of burclarJ cont:cnry to section 294 (1) of tho Penal Codo o.nd sto2,lin:J contr2.ry to section 265 of tho Penal Code and sentenced to seven yox:s in):risonnont in 1.--cspoct of tho first count and five years i□prisonnont in respect of tho second count. He has a:ppealod ae2,inst both 6onvictions and sontoncos. I Mr. S2,;ngawo for tho Repu1)lic did' not r,upr:,ort convictions for th1--oo I basic reasons. Ho su1Jr.1i ttod tbd tho• trial com~t 's judcnont did not conply with tho provisions of section 312 (1) of tho Crininal Prococlu:ro Act, 1985. Ho oaintD,j_nocl that tho judc;...ont did not contain tho point or points for dotomination and tho reasons for tho decision. Mr. Sance,wo further subni ttod t:1at t 1.10 identification of properties alleged to have boon stolen by tho appo:lln.nt was not properly dona. Ho naintained that .. . it was done in conflict of principles ·w:ct~-a,p-w:rf;int;.tho :•OMO of Naflsoro Moha.o.ed v. Republic 1967 HoCoD .. 446 in that tho description of tho stolon i tcr:1s given by tho coople.inant had 1-xwn Givon after tho alleged stolon property had 1)oon sh01m to l1ino Tho proper l)rocoduro, Mr. Sruigawo subr:iitted, was foJ: tho 00,:1:plain&"lt to:first e;-ivc his distin2,irl.shinc; nD.rks before tho propo.rtios dlococl to have ,ooon stolon ".W-ol:.'o. she.wnt:to.lti.p. Mr. Sangawo lastly suoDittod that tho trial ,, nacist:ra.to did not adequately consider tho defence whic;1 was in 2.11.j- ,,ce,so a roo.sono,blo explain2,tion of how tho appellant ha.cl coi:io across tho f;Oods s0id to have boon stolon. Thero is sufficient GVidonco,<~1llijL to show· that tho house of. Saxa .lmthon Konba Pl1.l was l)Urclod mcl sovoral :i.tons fxon· therein .stolon. The prosecution r.12i tainocl that tho appollnnt w2,n found in possession of those stolon i to::is but on tho cvidenco on rocoi"t~ tho belief by tho prosecution has not boon proved. Tho ·'subnissfon by :Mro Sangmro tht1t tho prosecution hacl fnilocl to idontif;y- tho tlunc;s found at tho house of tho a.pp :.;llant as t~10 so that had 1)ocn st lori fro::, tho house of PlT.1 h;..'..S nori ta; j . 2 Tho idonti:flication was dono as tho coqplaim,nt vms e:x:c.1nining tho f,"OOds pointing out hor iclontific2.tion rn::.rks. L 1--ocoi1)t for a tcpo rocorclor which statocl she had at :1000 was not ovon prod.ucou.. If such a receipt had l)oon produced. it would hnvo gone to prove t>ct that tape 1·cco1-tl6r boloneocl to tho coni)lainc:.nt in view of tho f2.ct th2,t tho conplcina.nt was not claininG 01mo:;:•sl1ip of th;:,,t tnpo roco:cclor., For tho com·t to have acceptod as proper iclontification of it nor~;ly 1)y tho conplainant roo.clinc out scricl nunlJor on tho tapo 1,roco:rclo:r fo1; tho court to :rocord wr,,s v.n orror 0 Tho com·t shoulcl have procoodod 1-Tith t~1is issue on· tho guideline clotl:.ilod in tho Cc.,.so of l'Jasso1·0 Mohc.d:l_Od Vo RO])Ublic ( suri1:_a_l. Tho two other sulxussions by Mr. Se,ncmro 2.J."1() fully bo~:·no out 1)y tho record of tho. :proceodj_ngs. lo dofen~ 1)y tho am1ollant that the c;ooa.s found in his :possession had boon sent there l)y his co-accused who was a tenant of his m1cl 1:ho hacl placed those as sor.10 sort of socuri ty for tho loan ho he.d owed t)10 ap1)oll2nt wcs cJ.is[1issed out of lm.nclo In th0 circunstancos of this 02..so tho oxplnin'c1tion w2,s not unror.sons.ble. 'I llio r-ocord shows the,t tho appollcnt is a lancl lorcl ancl his co-accused who was acq_ui ttod was lus tonanto Tlio 2,ppollwt W8,S also a tcn~oll-.lead.er • a position that should hr}TO drawn t~10 attention of tho tl'i2.l nagistrato roga:rcUng the respect w:1:t±1- w~1icl:. tho aj/£Killsnt 1 s noic;hbourhood hold tho 2,ppollanto Tho t:i.'ial nac;istr;:,,to should fw:-t:.1or have taken into consideration tho conduct of the a:-,nollF'nt c1-u:dnG invosticction of this case. i-1hon tho police uont to conduct a so2.:2cl1 2..t his house, ho had boon r,, very willinc custonor a.ncl had assisted tho sod.,rch party fully. 1-ITlcn such fo.cts are conside1•od, tho dofonc~, W~Hod->bb1iter..- cona!dQI'e.tiM than that -which he,cl 1)0011 e;iven by givinc reasons n,s to why it was fol t tho dcfonoo was worthy 'boliovinG or not• Tho t:;.~i2,l nac;istm.to did not do such thine;s. And this :I:oc.dsr:oo·~to1.,conS-idar~;i;aoi:tJ:iim.';:~~11.n by Mr. Sa.ngawe th2,t t:·10 trial court's judc;ncnt showed tho court held not sul)joctod tho oviclonco rJof ore it to ov2,luation. Roa.clinc tho juclr.;r.1ont 1 this suboission is Vl:..licl. Indooc. the jucl0 .1ont clirl not oven fully detail tho 02.so fox tho 11rosecution ancl dofonco lot alone evaluate it. Tllo judsnont appearocl hu.:r~dod o..nd dofinatoly vor-:-,r cr:.SU8J.• I • On tho br,sis of this judgnont alone an appol12-to court would bo ho*'tant to u~lc1 a. conviction. For roD,sons dotc,ilocl above I find nori t in tho ap:poeJ. which is hereby allowod. Tho convictions entered a.zainst tho a;ppellMt e.ro hereby quashed and tho concurrent terr:is of prison sontonco sot aside. r.fuo appellant is to be sot froo at once unless ho. is otherwise lc;wfully hold on another r.1attor. ~~ YDJ.1-;ra Rulx,.un Jucl.e:,"O 28~9.88 J