Mustapha Ramadhan Seleman vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 25744 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 2999 (5 June 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA DODOMA SUB REGISTRY AT DODOMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25744 OF 2025 (Arising from the decision of the District Court of Bahi at Bahi before Hon. A. M. Msangi RM dated 6 th October 2025 in Criminal Case No. 20163 of 2025) MUSTAPHA RAMADHAN SELEMAN ............................................. APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC ........................................................................ RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 13/5/2025 & 5/6/2026 MASABO, J.:- The appellant stood charged with two counts before the District Court of Bahi at Bahi ("the trial court"). In the first count, he was charged with rape contrary to section 130(l)(2) (a) and 131 (1) of the Penal Code [Cap 16 R.E 2023], and in the second count, he was charged with unnatural offence contrary to section 154 (1) (a) of the Penal Code [Cap 16 R.E 2023]. After a full trial before the trial court, the appellant was found guilty in both counts. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to thirty (30) years imprisonment and life imprisonment for the two counts, respectively. The appellant was deeply aggrieved by the decision of the trial court. His appeal to this court is based on the following grounds of appeal. One, the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Two, the prosecution's evidence raised material doubts which could have been resolved in favour of the appellant. Three, the appellant was not sufficiently identified at the crime scene. Four, the appellant's defence was ignored. And five, the trial was tainted with procedural irregularities. Page 1 of 6

The facts material to the case as discerned from the trial court's record may be summarised as follows. The offence happened at midnight on 2 nd July 2025 at Kingwe village within Bahi District in Dodoma region after the appellant forcefully broke into the victim's room while she was sleeping. The victim recognised him as he was known to him, and there was a solar light which was on. When she enquired why he was there, the appellant threatened to kill her. Sensing danger, she surrendered. The appellant raped her, and after he finished, he turned her over and forcefully had carnal knowledge of her against the order of nature. He then cut the victim with a knife at the anus and left while he locked the door from the outside. After he had left, the victim sought help and had the door opened. She reported the matter at a police station and was taken to the hospital, where she received treatment, and it was confirmed that her vagina and anus were penetrated by a blunt object. The appellant totally refuted the allegations levelled against him. He stated that the charge against him was fabricated in retaliation for a broken love affair between him and the victim. He also summoned a witness who testified that, on the material day, he was at home with the appellant. The court found the version of his story to have cast no doubt on the prosecution's case, and it proceeded to convict and sentence him. When the appeal came for hearing, the appellant was duly represented by Mr. Christopher Malinga, learned advocate, while the respondent enjoyed the service of Mr. Lucas Komba, learned State Attorney. Hearing proceeded by way of written submission, and both parties complied with the schedule. I thank all of them. The ultimate issue for determination by this court after considering the grounds of appeal is whether the appeal has merit. Before I deliberate on the grounds Page 2 of 6

of appeal, I will start with a point I raised suo motto regarding the validity of the charge and the proceedings. Addressing the court on this issue, Mr. Komba submitted that, indeed, the charge sheet is defective as it does not disclose the name of the victim. She is identified by the acronym "RJB". In her evidence, she identified herself by an actual name. The other witnesses referred to her as the victim. Thus, there was a variance, and no clarification was provided to show that PW1 is the same as RJB. The disparity, he argued, rendered the charge fatally defective and left the charge unproved. Mr. Malinga joined hands and argued that the anomaly ought to have been cured through amendment, and since there was none, the case remained unproven. Both prayed that the proceedings be nullified, the conviction and the sentence be set aside, and the appellant be released. Jurisprudence dictates that the charge sheet and the evidence should not be at variance. They must be aligned, meaning that the evidence produced during the trial should tally with the charge sheet (see Matiku s/o Thomas vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2022) [2024] TZCA 666 TANZLII, Salum Rashid Chitende vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No 204 of 2015) [2015] TZCA 572 TANZLII, Adamson Mwakasangule vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2022) [2026] TZCA 272 TANZLII, and Charles Maiso Manyanki vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 671 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 90 TANZLII. In Charles Maiso Manyanki vs Republic (supra), the name of the victim appearing in the charge sheet was different from the name by which she was identified in the evidence. The Court of Appeal, underscoring the importance of the arraignment of the two, held thus: "We wish to restate, for a start, that, the established legal position in our criminal jurisprudence is that, proof of criminal charges must entail marrying the charge that founds the Page 3 of 6

proceedings with the evidence adduced during trial. This is precisely because it is the evidence adduced in court that establishes the accused's culpable role in the complaint levelled against him in the charge sheet. Where the testimony drifts away from the charge, the remedy that the prosecution has is to invoke the right reserved under section 251 (1) of the CPA and pray for amendment of the charge to rhyme with the evidence intended to be adduced during trial. Where this opportunity is spurned and a witness is led to adduce evidence that disagrees with the charge, then it is taken as though no evidence has been led at all and the charges are considered to have not been proved." In the end, having established that the name of the victim as depicted in the evidence drifted away from the charge sheet, it nullified the proceedings and allowed the appeal. Therefore in the present case, therefore, the name of the victim appearing in the chargesheet ought to tally with the name used in the evidence. Since they were at variance, I subscribe to the submissions by the learned counsels that the case was not proved. Further to the inconsistency, the use of an acronym in the charge sheet was in itself a fatal defect as it contradicted the rule that the charge sheet, being the foundation of all criminal trials and a roadmap of the accused's defence, must reasonably alert the accused of the important elements of the offence he is facing by containing all the necessary particulars to enable him to prepare his defence (see Robert Elias Clemence vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 558 TANZLII. As held by the Court of Appeal in Isdori Patrice vs. The Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2007) [2007] TZCA 2, TANZLII, this rule hinges on the basic rules of criminal law and evidence and Page 4 of 6

the right to fair trial, and it is provided for under section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which states that: "Every charge or information shall contain, and shall be sufficient if it contains, a statement of the specific offence or offences with which the accused person is charged, together with such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of theoffence charged." Needless to emphasize, the name of the victim is of utmost importance and must therefore be disclosed unless there is an order to the contrary, more so in the present case, where the offence was committed against the person. Without it, the accused would not know his accuser and would certainly not be in the position to prepare a meaningful defence and exercise his right to be heard. This is not to say that I am oblivious to the need for protection of the dignity of the victims of sexual offences, which must have triggered the use of acronyms. The protection, while desirable, must be in conformity with the prevailing law. The Court of Appeal was faced by an akin scenario in the case Juma Mwandu vs the Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 289 TANZLII. In that case, the charge sheet had the actual names of the victim, but in the proceedings, a pseudonym was interchangeably used with her actual name. Yet, there was no court order or anything in the record explaining or sanctioning the use of the pseudonym. The Court, held that the use of pseudonyms in the proceedings was inconsistent with the measures for protection of the identity of the victim of sexual offence envisaged in section 192(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap 20 R.E 2023] and the Circular issued by the Chief Justice in Page 5 of 6

2018 to guide courts in handling cases involving children and victims of sexual offences in criminal and adoption proceedings. In the present case, the use if acronym in the charge sheet was similarly, inconsistent with the measures envisaged in section 192(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act. And since there was no explanation or court order sanctioning it, I am of the settled view that the use of the acronym rendered the charge sheet fatally defective. In the foregoing, the proceedings, judgment, conviction and sentence are therefore a nullity for having stemmed from a fatally defective charge sheet. In consequence, I allow the appeal, quash and set aside the conviction and sentence, and order the immediate release of the appellant unless he is otherwise held for a lawful cause. DATED and DELIVERED at DODOMA this 5 th day of June 2026. JUDGE Page 6 of 6 J.L. MASABO