Anthony S/O Shonza vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2000) [2000] TZHC 264 (14 July 2000)

...b....o,.o ou ut pu 'uLputt zto pencI 'punoz aq o. xaq M&J 'J&q pet iiecI e cu nq la tuoq tnx pu dose o4 peuw MoU10 J °Ut ppAwc vu .uiwzj VrTTacid aqq w.x; eqj oq Suiwoo uc pe UkI3 $J303 v W Wetfl:X0J UI[M SM r$Id 91 4 W @ lq4 04 tIflOtt)ftIfl ttIUO0W 4tM ITT [qtzq srem q L l3T u XeaS rau wc.x; awoq N o v q SuT N Tem. aZeM (cMd) QwITt cw P f'd WV oo noq' 66°v% jo qqBTU eq. S UTaMQ

• "Auzo4 e9 pautei l ao , e JTU09 # JW S q p-' 'twii WTTedde aq4 iVq aw oojeq psn2xe sem t(3U.IM 1CIJ att4 G3uq 'poAetI qij ej ' nsse qq. ;o ri e; 0 /OOO'OYtT 'I 'dJ fl. J0 LUI3IA 9t14 04 =/000'00 ~ 1 *GqV J O uotuecIwoo TTOm se pa.xapo os eit eueo 9UZ jo saNOJ4s 9UTM tzotmuoo unx Oq ptep.xo J3t4 tttTM ' ei -q.oecta.x 'ai ouo pt.te Lsac S ; x7Lq4 jo q.uewuo - zdwt Jo sw.xa;

1. paoua4uft ptM peio sre SUfl03 fl0q JO POTAUOO ttrdd etp (+714d) uopm onqwns.j • V- eM WtOtA epo T 'e UGl Gq4 ;o LJ 7 2 UOT4 0 99 04 IZO 'U1JaH R -I TP*g TeflO' 9 U-19n3 1.Efl$T Un0DPUO3 . pe (ff) oqwt o/p sM W130IA eqj ;R W Jo i iq pepuetue em epO, Tuedai q4 T° (I, )ct. P e)(?)(.)O -suoioe9 0 1. r.i1.uoo 'dj -: 94unoa OMl pewruoo tT3TTM quaw4OTPUT ue UQ TZ0Qj JO Ut03 Otettojaq pexT'e.Lv.? eM '-ezuOqg uOtflUy ' EcfrIE aqj ;tiew JO PT0MP Sn0q joe uT .2 aq Gui 4 arl Ioi

• dNWX[flf -. ITIJdcTV V7NOI*1 0/g AMOHtMV — twpuap °j 10tJaS'1C TZOqW JO JZnOo 1.T'1.Ta e jo 666- JO 0J GST8D 1uThrt.I) 1yuttJo) 0 ' 0
• '.. 0002 do f72 NIWIO . ... VXLWrV
• O -. JI11 H)III WX HT 2 60 .-:'\1 0•

time he w jyp of her having sexual intercourse. In prptest PW2 was struggling to free herelf and raising alarms for help0 The alarms attracted Màsumbuko Andison (PW1+) who was alao on his way home. He went there in no time and found the appellant in thQ act of sexual intercourse with PW2. He demanded from the appellant tq know the reason for sexually assaulting P42. This interruption infuriated tho aeUant who turned to PW'-F and kicbed him. He also hit him on the head with a piece of iron whicn caused injuries (PF3 -. Ext P2). In his defence the appallant elaised that the crime was a. conco'tion and left it at that. This appl atands no chance of success. The appellant was sufficiently identified at the jcne of. crime as the ravisher of PW2 He was found in the act f seCiaa1 i4ej'çourse. The three prosecution witnessea were very well known to the ap1.lant Vho was their villagemate. They descri'ed his attire. The circumstantes left po oon 'or;,mistaken identity. The sentence of thirty years imprisonmant w the minimum prescribed by law for the offence. I sha., in the event, e4 as I began, and say I. find flQ merit in thi appeal whjch, in consequence, is hereby dismissed in it . entirety. • . , ( 7 1 r - / B.P.)SHI AT flBA, 14 July 20Q0.

• For Appellant: Present. •:
• For Republic: Mr.Nangela, S.A. 41