19801114 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The prosecution failed to establish both that the complainant was robbed and that the appellant was the perpetrator to the necessary degree; the evidence was unsatisfactory and the conviction could not stand.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19801114 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Yohana William; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 14 November 1980
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Robbery With Violence, Evidence, Identification, Appeal
- 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
Yohana William
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the complainant was in fact robbed as alleged
- 2 Whether the appellant was the person who committed the robbery
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution failed to establish both that the complainant was robbed and that the appellant was the perpetrator to the necessary degree; the evidence was unsatisfactory and the conviction could not stand.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- conviction quashed
- sentence set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
• IN THE HIGH COURT OF TZANIA k AT DARES SALAAM APPELLATE JUR]SDITION HIGH CouRT: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.. 109 of 1979 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 466 of 1978 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF KILOSA DISTRICT AT KILOSA Before: K.. A., KrJLOLEId, Esq.,. District Magistrate YOHANA. WIIIIA1"I . . . .•. . . . . . . . . . . . . .APPELLANT VERSUS THE fl.PtiBLIC .4 . .. . 0 • • • • • • • • . . . . RESPONDBNT JUDGEMENT NAPIGAN0 9 J. The appellant Yo.hana William is appealing from his conviction entered by the district court at Kilosa on 31/1/1979. He was convicted of robbery with viplence under sections 285 and 286 of the Penal Code and given seven year' imprisonment under the Minimum Sentences Act. In fine, his main ground of appeal is that the evideice against him was unsatisfactory. I have gone through the record and., with respect, I am disposed to agree with the appellant. There were, in my opinion, two main issuea which fell for the decision of the court. The first was whether the complainant Saidi Mohamedi was in fact robbed as alleged; and the second was whether the appellant was actually the man who committed the robbery. In my opinion the evidence led by the prosecution did not establish those two pots to the necessary degree. •.. .2/. . . I / • • •2/,':,. 0 S The complainant told court that he was attacked and robbed by, two men in the evening )us± after sunset and that the culprits left hni stark naked. He claimed that the appèllant 'was one of the two men. But he did not pár±1'culaisè h6q. came to identify th appellant. And w1t is.urpr1sing s that the complainant never went to report ch inc±deit to any authority. Among the items whih were allegedly forcibly stolen from the complainant was a cap which was tendered in evidence. That was a piece of evidence' on which the trial court partly based the.conviction. With respect', I think he was wrong. There was simply no evidence as from where or whom the police had recovered that cap. For -those reasons I feel I should not risk letting the conviction stand, Accordingly, I allow the appeal,' quash the conviction and set aside the sentence. Unless the appellant is otherwise lawfully held, he is to be released from custody forthwith. Delivered in Court, ..DJR ES SALLQAM (D. P• NAPIGANO) 14/11/1980 JUDGE