[1940] EACA 17
The court found that the conviction was supported by ample evidence, including the positive identification of stolen property found in the appellant's possession. The appellant's claims regarding the lottery ticket and his alibi were not substantiated by evidence, and the trial judge was entitled to believe the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1940] EACA 17
- Parties
- Appellant: Shabani bin Donaldi; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1940
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
- Judges
- Cluer J, Webb CJ, Whitley CJ
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Evidence Admissibility, Identification of Stolen Property, Police Reports, Corroboration, Appeals
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shabani bin Donaldi
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
- 2 Whether the lottery ticket was found in the appellant's possession.
- 3 Whether the appellant's alibi was credible or supported by evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the conviction was supported by ample evidence, including the positive identification of stolen property found in the appellant's possession. The appellant's claims regarding the lottery ticket and his alibi were not substantiated by evidence, and the trial judge was entitled to believe the prosecution's witnesses. The court further emphasized the importance of admitting evidence of immediate police reports by witnesses at trial, as such evidence can corroborate testimony or reveal inconsistencies, pursuant to section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
# COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
## Before WHITLEY, C. J. (Uganda), WEBB, C. J. Tanganyika) and CLUER, J. (Tanganyika)
### REX, Respondent (Original Prosecutor)
# SHABANI BIN DONALDI, Appellant (Original Accused) Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 1940
(Appeal from the decision of H. M. High Court of Tanganyika)
Criminal Procedure—Evidence—Report to Police—Indian Evidence Act. section 157.
Held (16-7-40).—That it is desirable in almost every case in which an immediate report has been made to the police by someone who is subsequently called as a witness that evidence of the details of such report (save such portions of it as may be inadmissible as being hearsay or the like) should always be given at the trial.
Appellant absent, unrepresented.
#### Smith for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by WEBB, C. J.).—On the night of the 18th February, 1940, the house of Ismail Kunwarji was broken into and money and other articles belonging to him or members of his household were stolen. On the next day the appellant was arrested at Msassani. He was then wearing a felt hat and had with him a basket containing, amongst other things, four bottles of perfume and a lottery ticket. The hat, two of the bottles of perfume and the lottery ticket were positively identified as forming part of the stolen property. In his notice of appeal the appellant relies upon two matters: that the lottery ticket was not found in his possession, and that he could prove that on the night of the burglary he was not in Dar es Salaam but in Soga. As to these points there was evidence, which the learned trial Judge believed, that the lottery ticket was found in the appellant's basket, and at the trial the appellant stated that he had no witnesses to call. In our opinion there was ample evidence to support the conviction, and, having regard to the appellant's record, the sentence is a proper one. The appeal is dismissed.
We desire to add that in cases like this, and indeed in almost every case in which an immediate report has been made to the police by someone who is subsequently called as a witness evidence of the details of such report (save such portions of it as may be inadmissible as being hearsay or the like) should always be given at the trial. Such evidence frequently proves most valuable, sometimes as corroboration of the evidence of the witness under section 157 of the Evidence Act, and sometimes as showing that what he now swears is an afterthought, or that he is now purporting to identify a person whom he really did not recognize at the time, or an article which is not really his at all.