Zuberi Abdallah vs Republic (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 476 (4 October 2000)

J I r .i THE HIGH COURT OF TANZJ\NIA AT Tl.NGA ~ HIGH ~T'JRT CRIMINAL /:.PPEAL NO. 73 OF 1999 ORIGINAL CRD1INAL C1\SE NO. 313 OF 1999 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF KOROGWE DISTRICT AT KOROOWE) ZUBER! ABDAWIH •• • •· ............ ., •••••• ., ••.•• ., ••••• .A.PPELLL\NT (ORIGIN/.J:, !.CCUSED) VERSUS: (ORIGINAL PROSECUTOR) JUDGMENT: --===::::.t.kW---&·m~~ The appellant in this case, namely ZUBER! ABDli.LL.l-i.was convicted by the District Court of Korogwe on his own plea of guilty to a charge of stealing contrary to Section 265 of the Penal Code. It was alleged in the charge sheet that he had stolen an assortment of merchandise estimated to be wort) Shs .100 ,4Jo/... from one ABEDI Sl\NDALA who is a merchant at Ma.nundu • K ... ;tn orogwe. When called upon to plead he pleaded guilty and after the facts were read over to hi.11 he said they were correct. Thereafter the trial court sentenced the appellant to two (2) years imprisonment. · In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant in essence complains tl1at be was CQarced into admission by the police who had tortured · him. He reiterated bis stance when he appeared before me during the hearing of lb.is appealo

'" 2 .. The case for the Respondent/Republic was advocated upon by Mr. Rutagwelera, Principal State Attorney. He urged the court to dismiss the appeal that the appellant's plea was unequivocal and that the facts as narrated by the public prosecutor and admitted by the appellant without qualification did constitute the offence charged and justified entering a conviction against him. I have anxiously and very . carefully gone through the proceedings of the trial court. I am suspectfully in full agreement with the submission of Mr. Rutagwelera, learned Principal State Attorney that the facts as narrated by the public prosecutor and admitted by the appellant without qualification have constitut0d the offence charged. I have also gone through the appellant's allocutus. I am again satisfied that what the appellant said in mitigation clearly did not change the situation. His statement in mitigation is also a clear indication that he had committed the offence. I decline to accept the appellant's complaint that he did not commit the offence and that his extra-judi,cial statement tendered at the tri&l. as Exhibit 1 iB 11 was not made voluntarily. I also do not acceed to the appellant's assertion that be pleaded guilty to the offence and admitted the facts because he was tortured by the police into submission and compelled to admit the offence diuring his trial. This is a fantansy of the appellant after a long sojourn in custody. I am in full agreement with tl;_e · finding and conclusion of the trial, convicting __ court ~ that his extra-judicial statement and admission of the offence amounted to a confession. The trial magistrate was perfectly entitled to enter conviction as he did. He can not at all be faulted for doing so • ••• /3 ":~ '•c.,, /"

I 3

In the upshot, the appeal is accordingly dismissed and sentence imposed upon him which requires confirmation is hereby confirmed. DELIVERED at T!INGA on this 4th day of October• 2000 in tl~ presence of tbe appella.YJ.t who is present in person and in the presence of Mr. Rutagwelera, Principal State Attorney. JUDGE