Benard Daka v People (SCZ APPEAL No. 35 OF 1994) [1994] ZMSC 176 (23 August 1994)

• I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (CRIMINAL JURISDICTION) BET W E·E N: BENARD DAKA · AND:- THE PEOPLE • • I • SCZ APPEAL No.35 OF 1994 , .. ,. I , • APPELLANT I .. , RESPONDENT ·. .,• ,, Coram: Gar~ner. Chirwa and . Nuzy•a, · d.,J.._s. For the Appellant: W. L. Henriques. senior Legal Aid Counsel For the Respondent: w. Waogwor. Pri_ncipal State ~dvoc:_ate 26th July a~d .. 23rd August 1994 J U D 6 ~-... . E K T Muzyamba, J,.s., delivered the JudQQlent of the _c:ourt~ ·.' ,,,The appellant was c9nvlc::ted of . agg~a~~Jc;t\obbery contrary , ; ' , .. : : ) , •: I , ' : • • \ :~ to Sectton 294 6f the Pend Code, Cap. 146 of .the_ L~w~ of Zambia •. · Th~ p~rticul~rs of . the offence. we~~--~at ... ~enniS N. Yi.renda. . '. . . ' --~ ; . . . .. :, Benard Dal<a and Samson Mwila, on the 1st ~f ·Au9ust<1_9~~-::at_._Mauit(in _···._. the Ndola Rural Distr~ct of the CopP.erbelt P~ovince· of-' the Repu~lic .. of : ·: .. i.ilffibia. jointly and whilst acting together witlt otller. persons ·unknown .and being armed with firearms. di~ steal six spanner~. itwo ·caiculators, two . pieces of chitenge material. Qne torcn ani 1<370~000•00: <:ash. alt9gether· valued at K381,050-00 the property of Nchanga Farms and at or _irnmedlately . ~ 1,l~--.u~e· o_r- tot~aten before or lmmediate.ly after the time of sue~: s~e~~i?, ~o use actual vi~lenee ~'?_ Joe.l Mupunga the ·wat;hm,~ft~:!~~~r to .,obtain . 1t1,,~stance· to the or ret~i"' ,the pro~e~tt $~o.len Qr i~ ~rev,QO:t __ ~r <?V~~: pro·pe_~y.~·be_ing stolen1·0r ,rQt.4,lned •. x . , ~1 •• • \~"-•:';-";' ' . .. ,, ~ 'i• • ,..: . :• .. r: .. '· ~~fi·;: 1 , i. • , _. " t;.:::i,'1\ .. ••,...r ••t •""' ·t''f, ..,,+ J ' A:f •hJ t~ i. ~ ,~ ; , .~~ . . . t (J f .,. f1. "'t" ( ~ •. t~1. f~t":~.~,r;~,-,t_• ,.,,l. ~.~ -= .. ~Jfk 'fi• '~• •t, •.7;-,- ~ . . ". . $entence. . !~e .~hef :,~wo1•:(J~~;~~,f~~ t~e ·.;.ri.tl>~ _ .. ~;~ e~~~-~-~ , : .'·. /" • ;: : . H.e .ha:~· now~a-ppealed,,'t"', thts court agatn·s. ~~otll. conviction and •,,. . . . , '·, . . ' .. ,: The 'facts of _the case were th.~t on 1.st '. Aug-Os~!r; .. 1992. ·a;:u~d· \/ 22.30 hours PW.2, Joel Mupungit was attacked by mor~_:thall four ~op~e while guaN,:Ung a workshop at Nchanga Fanns in . Ndola-·Rural~ ·• T~e thieves broke into the storeroom and blew the safe with explosives ·:and got away with· the items }isted in the particulars of the offence .. . The 11111tt~fJlclS reported to the Police and investigations were . carried out.. On 3rd August, ·1992 . ·-D~·-_;.;:~f~ .: ·.: . t .,:i~t • ; , ·.-. · . . ,I, • . . J.• -: ., ·' •• • • . . ' • • • • J • , . • "i • • ,. l ,. • . material and some cash were found on them. In addition. th_ey were found with ammunition and explosives for which they were tried and convicted by th& Subordinate Court at Luanshya ~nd each sentenced to~ months. imprisonment with hard labour. J2 Arguing the appeal -on behalf of th~ app~llant Miss Henriques . . , • ;;,,-,. . advanced one ground of appeal namely that the learned tri~l judge was wrong to con~iict the appellant of aggravated robbery because the evidence did not support the charge. She ~ubmttted that PW.2, the Principal witness for the prosecution. Mr. Joel Mupunga contradicted himself both '1n· examtna- tion in chief and _in cross examination. That earlier QR in examination -ln chief he said that the ~hief who held a gun orde~d him to lie down ~nd cover himself with a sac~.,,.~~hlch .he dld. Later he said that before the · thieves left, one of them told the anned man to cov-er him with a-sack, which he did and then left. She submitted that if infact PW.2 had earlier on covered himself with ~ sac_k then it did not make any sense -tha~ -th~ thieves had .to cover hi-m again as they left the premise$. She further subml tted th,at fn·· ~ross examination this witness had earlier on sa.1d that : when the thieves enterfld he was ~ n the go~s shed and wb~n he h~ar.d a ban_g from the di re~tt on of a combine harvester. he was lying (fowo· and·; .not · · '.":· sleeping. Later on .he said he was. S9ted. -He, again tha~gecf ·ancs'·.·sald when the thieves entered the storeroom tie w~s hiding .in the ·.ih.ed.·· : She.'submitted that these were materi.al cantradictlons which rendered ·this· witne~s•s .evidence unreliable and. which should hav.e been resolved in favour .of ·.the · appellant. That the lower court should have."found .that lthep .-the·•thiev~$ · broke into the storeroQITI antJ stole therefro~···and,''left~~-guar4 :~as :•saf~_ly . hiding in the goods shed and therefore.that he was never~subjected to ·any threats. She also drew the at~«mt1011··of _the .. ~ourt t,ji.lthe -~vi_d~n,ce of P~i:~6, the investigating off.1~~.r. Mr. Zi~a who .said he re<;~l~ed a reP.o~ Qf a.,. break 1n and not robbery~ At .p,~e\H ~f ~~-.. ,r~co~i-~~--.~ ... sald~: . ·•. . . . .· • •' ' ~i~ . • . I • , • . • , . ') . " • • • ~ . . . ' • • I ' • • • • . ' ' t 1 ~ •'I~ •,r•h t,,ttt • 1 ~ \ • • • • . • -- . "I recall th~ 2nd of August 1~9i·when· I recehe(J >.":P.~,. a report of a break ·1n .. 1t~Nchangi ~Fara1$ and that ~~O qff~~~$~. O!'e,--~CvCO~~~-,~fft~,.1.in~ .. ~,J_';9~,::· . : stores pfflce •e~ .b_,,~~ -lnto. It was 'fu~er ~ . . . . ~.;. . rep9rted th~t o:,,e of the··thteves :had a gun.-.ll_ ,, • 'l '"-:'1. IJ'v• \ A ;Jr j J.. ~ .. ,. " .... • . ~ • . . . ••. '! ·,i_; ,: •• .. . J • • • I . ' . • . . • .. • ,.·. .· • tl • ·1:, I . • . ~ \ .., ·, • ' • : ;" • I .,\ ) t-\ I At page 13 he said•. ln'·~N~~ -e~ainlriat'io~u .t·~:~ .: · 1 " .• :~', o • ! • • r. _,,,;. 'I'" ·• • • I 11Wtten it w~s repo~ed at-the Police Stat.ion ·1~ was reported as. br~aking into a b~i ldln_g wit~ intent to steal • However 1 ·. when 1 · vis 1 ~ed the scene P~S.2 ·told ~ -•he ha~ ··seen a· ~un with ·one . .~,Ai'.-:- · .. · . ' I ' . . ;" 1 J3f f • ~ .. . ' .. ,,:-,-~.:...r/.. •.· . , ,, I•. i I, •'4 • ·1 .. ·. 1 i f : ,, .. ,• : . . 1113 of the robbers. It could be Charles MuUsa l (art change or P\~. 2 who made the ~port. the- offence tf more- evtcttmce ls revealed. l changed the offence ~o ,..ggr&1ated robbery after l found then't with anznuntttcms. This conflnnea P. W.afs report that he had seen one of them wltn a gun. In the ftrst paragraph of my r~port l dld not mention tbat PW. 2 was tnreatenfJd wtth a gun~ 8 ' . f • She .eonclud~ l>y $41lft9 that th~ evtdence Gt 111~6 suppor:t$d- her earner -- subllitssl'On that PK.2 wa. J biding 4lld never subjected to _1,iy thNlats «nd - · urged th~ court.to aliow';;.ffle oppeal against th• ~onvlct!Qn f4r aggravate<S robbery and su_bsti tut.e a convlc\lon for th.a lesser_·. offence ·-of store breaking • . , i , '• . ' . . - I • ' ~ In response Mr. wangwor ·s1:1twittld·t11~t .the evidence in support • , • ' • , : • . • : • • " ' : , , ;: · 0 , ' • <, • I I . . . . . . ' - ~ .. , of the ch~rge "1115° strong. That the c:ontt'l<ltct&·,mS: hl;hllght(!d by MISS .' : J-ienriques were not serious- and that although Pij~2 used the 11ord hiding~ _ ttils should not be c:on.strued literally. He -further :submitted ·that tt was not uncamion for the Pol h:a-to c:Jtar.ge a per~ of . J · 1esser•J~ffenc4t whtle . ~ontinul~g wltb their investlgattons and-. ia~r-. upgrl4e -~ 'dlarge ff niore .. evtdenc:e Is found. .-,._·\. 1'7·-.-- . .• .--. _ _.:~.::, . • . . . . ,· . , . ' - - ' ' I • • • T O . -~ . I ' ., •., lf lncletd the rePO~i . :We_ have conti~red :th·• ':subra~~~.lons by.:~ CounJel 1n~ the .. eYldence on record and our -inwnadtate ob1ervat10,r ls. tllat thls ease was · -~~~t Plf~2 ·was ~ld poorly. handled by the Pol tee.. at gun point by one thief whUe the others broke into·-·the :store and ble11 . the safe and stole the goods arid ihtt.: appellAnt and :ihe dec&ased were lawr found with the stolen lteias. -.,n~tlon and ·expl()${ves then we do not ' under,stand why lo thtt fir.st place the PoUce cttar'ge<l';t~em wlth being tn , unlawful possessto~ of alll1lttnition· ~nd exploslves -.and had them c:onvl~d and then charged tllem wJth store breaking and la~t'"upgraded the charge to aggravated robbery. We ar1t 1nc·uned thereto~ ~t~/;agree with Miss Henriques tnat tne Poltce ~cted in this mon~r ~c~.us , .. the report they recetve<rwas -.· .:-\ c,ne or breaking In. PN.2 'MY have;,~ 1ooe. of the thieve! armed with a gtUl but. this must hav• been at a dls"nee and while tae was hi-ding. He would therefore· agree W,ith Mlsi Henrfq~s that th~ evidence :~·i < not support the 4harge of •ogr•vated robbery" Had ~e • learri'ecl'' trlal judge .. taken Into account the serious contradlctton,5· tr.-~•>evidence of PW.2. we ·. have no doubt that he would have come to a dtff~rent'ttQrt~l~slon,. We would ,' '•'{' f• f' ,,. .. . ! • • . ! . ' ti,'\ ,- 1 . I .,,.111\ ' . . .. . • • -~ •·1 -· . . . . ' ' ' ' ' ' • . , ' • . . . I I ' , t - I • I I I ...... .. • 'J4 t :therefore allow the appeal and quasb the conviction and set a~ide the In its place we substitute a convictiOf\ of store breaking· $entence. contrary to section 304 Qf the Penal Code., Cap. 146 an~ seritenct the . appellant to five years tmprisonmen~ with htrd labour wJth effE;tqt_·. from 3~d August 1992, the date c,f hls, arrest. . . . . . ' ; ' . ' ' ' ' ,, . . .. . I' : i . I l C) " . . . ... ' . ' ··~·-~~·········~· . a..r. G,ARDN.eD ... ··~sd'PR- COURT clU . , _, l' j ' .,/·',J ,.,,._. . ~ ./ . . , • , ~ t ~ ! ,• .. . SUPQMIFCOUR'(r: ., . • ••~•'9':• • ~•,• .. ~•::r,•·~~~ I~-~,. -~~i}'N\qA2 ~ I SUPRC:W!' ~l\afnt.~u · '"A"°· u,\IIIA - . r1 $ .... •• f '; "' , I ,, .,,. ~ • • < • • ' J. .. C ' • •• .t,Y ~ .... ,- •. (,-, 71~~- !•',~~;~ ·tli:'I: l !Jt~ ~-' ' •. t~~;I . 'A~ ~ :' ,.,. '(1 ' J :(◄~)., J!~ , t'~•.fl:f.,.fi • . • ,;t ,~,~~- t~,·~t( ., ,. • ~f<!'{, ,Yi •( ~,,:, '\)' l?t J ·, YN,l':1,. ·•·Ji' !d ., , .. . ,k. ,', . ~ ir· '{··. . .. • • . . I i, ••• ........ .. ·.,.: . , . . . ' ~ • \'~f;,i,:-,., ... •.' ··'-.., t ~ /1;-t ,1,, = , ·i '•, ,'_ • • , , , ...., ~fl , --· -·- ,~~ 1 ·1 f1 .,. . ~-. ·~ -: •·).:..