africa.law — Free African Legal Information

Judgment

ict • .' . . . .• 0 CRflfl J 1, P7,E1111 L F04 49 Or: (Fror tc decision of the Dstrict Court of • I'bu1u' at buiu in C-.''Case 'N04 52/1993) •LPEL HUDO ' . .'i '• PPEILMTT '. • ''Versus'.' THE REPUBLIC ,,. •., .. RESOIDENT. (S NT NI.1O MU3HI JIJDGh . The Appeliat L' this Hando. He was rged. and convicted. 'bn two 'cou;, :.iiy agl'r c/is 294(1) and. ro'biery o/s 285 and 286 of the :h'al Code - :~ ao that during the nirt of 15/16 April 1993 at Kausr VillaL'e in M1ilu Dirict the ADpollant with intent 'to steal broke into the house of one Lazaro Daffi, It was futher alleged that after enter"i ti i1Oi50 the .ppc]ant ised. violeiioe to one Elizabeth G-iray by cutting her rigat hand fingers to facilitate stealing Shs 0' 130,000/=hich placod in a' 'box' and the same belonged to, Lazaro Daffi0 The A ppellant was sentenced to five (5) years lnprlsofi.Tient on the 'first count of burglary and fif -t eon 'years (1 5 • 'imprisonriient on the count of robbery nd the sentences were ordered 'o run consoobvel5r. The Apellant was therefoieLto serve 20 (twenty) jeers 1nfrison.ent6 110 is now appealnj aainst conviction and sontences. At first - tao apell- nt indicated that c vnshed to be presert at the heain of hi appeal 'bit later dn Dy a latter he!withdrew his intention to be DCOSOfl and the appeal was heard in his absence after adjourning the same for 10 timos while waitin for' him 'o E.1ter appearance, The prosecution case defended on the identification of the Appellant and credibility of mainly 11 I

Elizabeth Giray and lIT 2 Dugang Ahmay" It was not in dispute that tIe h6use of Lazaro Daffi was broken into and "S 130000/ ws stollen and f\rther that the monerwhich was stollen was 'kept in a 'bi which was later found. near the house and broken. It is o,t' also in dispute that PW 1 i-ho. is was the wife' of Läzaro Daffi was in the iouse that' i-i1t' hen tho 1101150 was broken"iito. It was also not disputed that the Appellait was a noibou of the complainant and was ii by PW 1 and. PW 2 for a long time, 7"1 .1 told the court that dwing the n±t of 1/i6 April 1993 she hoard someone 1eakirig the door of h"house and soon after a person 0 •.q/2

errtcrod her aoom. 1 1 ;1 1 said that he.Le w a unlng hurricar lamp and she ws able to dontaf t1e person wo entered oor as t o A ollant 4. in this appeal. Sho also aescribed the alta'c of thp1appelan±. Tho' ippollant as wearlrg a 'jlUO roisor and a iQiala coat, FT 1 statoi. bt the Apcllant dcrnandec to be s..own whore the rionoy as and notLon also6 PL 1 said she raised a alarn but the Appollant waned to cut ieck with a. panga which he had. came with. The witness nanagod tö 'hold the ............ " pança with her right hand, with e es cut that the panga that her 3rd 2 5th fingers, She alse s:± ' 'icr nek and face The injuries vhih PH 1 sufferca 'c.:.ii:±rmd by the doctor in his report on PP 3 Uhich was tendred a: cvi...: a.a and alec by the evidence of El' 2, FT 1 further the, ':rt t1' . &ring that the Appcllit would S kill her, she dir't'.' a.xx :n the room where the money i.,Tas kept and s 1 u keow th :1w: b'a':aad. had kept shs, 130, 000/= The witness to.d tho court thjt .hile the, Appellant was looking at the boxy she managed to ruil .ouisido and á'isc'd. alarm. Fl 2 told the ccuat that on tL mteai he ras co,2s in e Si a r tha noar the - ouse of the corplai ant and rvt dun the ni.rt he neard alarm irom that houso and ho immediately rucho&'to the place. Y 2 said that ' hib approached the complainants house s he saw the iippellant coming from the house h9lding a panga in his hand. El 2 said that ho idn'tifiod the Appellant by the light of his torch which he was holding. Fl 2 said that he called the Appellant by his namo but ho never ospondod hüt'kept on running away1 PIT 2 said that he 1cw the Appellant very well. PIJ 2 continued to toll the court that he wont there the place whore. FT 1 was raising alam and FT 1 told him that it was Injo which is anothupn'oo of the Appellant who had attacked her. Both witnesses 'continued to raise a.larmnd about six P00P10

turned up but the appcllat was 'not among those who had turned up that There was also the ovdÔncO o±. Fl 3 Nchemia Nasay, This witness

told tho cou that,..at thai mitoria-. per,od they were xding tho shaia'oa of the father of th apollant,. Ho said that during tho: nht of 15/16 April, himself andotho.perS&flS, arrived. at tho was used. by the guards at 11.00 p0m0 FIT 3 said ththc found a s1u1a of l c 'Jc1lant but the 1pcUant unsolf a P0 T1,o:r to be seeing. Th 3 told the court that the Appo11t 'came 'back at th' last at 500 a 0 m. and asked them if they had heard an alarm at night. The 'Appellant did not se./.D

== 3 == toll thom where he hacJ boon but PtT 3 was certain that the Aoi1awas not in the shatnba that niht The appellant denied the charjes against him. He told the oo Ox that ho had loft 'K,ansay Village at 2.00 Peiflo on 15/4/1993 CS hO ITO1Tt £aja Vllaie where 110 scit a iight. Ho said that on his way ba-ok on the following aay ho was. arrttea and cha:rgod with the oionoos in

this appeal. - The learned •l ::..r co;.isidorod the evidence boforo hir:i and found that 11--( 11 r L pro neriy identified and believed the tostironios of 2 T- 3. :)ntho cvidnCo as it was the loarnoa. -trial inagis:. w- fu.]:\ jietifi i in his findin& Tho clofonco was irkfully rejoeod, The pillant 1 s guilt was proved_ beyond reasonable doubt on the two cc c unts, The appeal against convictions is accordinily dismissed. As rogards sentence, thoro uui5 no juitificatian fo ordering tho sonncos -to run consecutively. The offencos were oommj.itod in ono transaction of breaking and stealing by using vao.ic-nco. The Appellant was a first Offender and a vouri nerson arfcd. 22 yoais The sontonoes

imposod on the Appellant are ordered to run concurrently0 That is the Appellant will servo a maximum of fiftoon (15) years. N. M. JUDGIE - 12/6/2000 0:cc1or The Principle S tato Attorney, A rusha to be served with a copy of the judgaont, N II. 1vR1 TLI 12/6/2000 11

Judgment

ict • .' . . . .• 0 CRflfl J 1, P7,E1111 L F04 49 Or: (Fror tc decision of the Dstrict Court of • I'bu1u' at buiu in C-.''Case 'N04 52/1993) •LPEL HUDO ' . .'i '• PPEILMTT '. • ''Versus'.' THE REPUBLIC ,,. •., .. RESOIDENT. (S NT NI.1O MU3HI JIJDGh . The Appeliat L' this Hando. He was rged. and convicted. 'bn two 'cou;, :.iiy agl'r c/is 294(1) and. ro'biery o/s 285 and 286 of the :h'al Code - :~ ao that during the nirt of 15/16 April 1993 at Kausr VillaL'e in M1ilu Dirict the ADpollant with intent 'to steal broke into the house of one Lazaro Daffi, It was futher alleged that after enter"i ti i1Oi50 the .ppc]ant ised. violeiioe to one Elizabeth G-iray by cutting her rigat hand fingers to facilitate stealing Shs 0' 130,000/=hich placod in a' 'box' and the same belonged to, Lazaro Daffi0 The A ppellant was sentenced to five (5) years lnprlsofi.Tient on the 'first count of burglary and fif -t eon 'years (1 5 • 'imprisonriient on the count of robbery nd the sentences were ordered 'o run consoobvel5r. The Apellant was therefoieLto serve 20 (twenty) jeers 1nfrison.ent6 110 is now appealnj aainst conviction and sontences. At first - tao apell- nt indicated that c vnshed to be presert at the heain of hi appeal 'bit later dn Dy a latter he!withdrew his intention to be DCOSOfl and the appeal was heard in his absence after adjourning the same for 10 timos while waitin for' him 'o E.1ter appearance, The prosecution case defended on the identification of the Appellant and credibility of mainly 11 I

errtcrod her aoom. 1 1 ;1 1 said that he.Le w a unlng hurricar lamp and she ws able to dontaf t1e person wo entered oor as t o A ollant 4. in this appeal. Sho also aescribed the alta'c of thp1appelan±. Tho' ippollant as wearlrg a 'jlUO roisor and a iQiala coat, FT 1 statoi. bt the Apcllant dcrnandec to be s..own whore the rionoy as and notLon also6 PL 1 said she raised a alarn but the Appollant waned to cut ieck with a. panga which he had. came with. The witness nanagod tö 'hold the ............ " pança with her right hand, with e es cut that the panga that her 3rd 2 5th fingers, She alse s:± ' 'icr nek and face The injuries vhih PH 1 sufferca 'c.:.ii:±rmd by the doctor in his report on PP 3 Uhich was tendred a: cvi...: a.a and alec by the evidence of El' 2, FT 1 further the, ':rt t1' . &ring that the Appcllit would S kill her, she dir't'.' a.xx :n the room where the money i.,Tas kept and s 1 u keow th :1w: b'a':aad. had kept shs, 130, 000/= The witness to.d tho court thjt .hile the, Appellant was looking at the boxy she managed to ruil .ouisido and á'isc'd. alarm. Fl 2 told the ccuat that on tL mteai he ras co,2s in e Si a r tha noar the - ouse of the corplai ant and rvt dun the ni.rt he neard alarm irom that houso and ho immediately rucho&'to the place. Y 2 said that ' hib approached the complainants house s he saw the iippellant coming from the house h9lding a panga in his hand. El 2 said that ho idn'tifiod the Appellant by the light of his torch which he was holding. Fl 2 said that he called the Appellant by his namo but ho never ospondod hüt'kept on running away1 PIT 2 said that he 1cw the Appellant very well. PIJ 2 continued to toll the court that he wont there the place whore. FT 1 was raising alam and FT 1 told him that it was Injo which is anothupn'oo of the Appellant who had attacked her. Both witnesses 'continued to raise a.larmnd about six P00P10

turned up but the appcllat was 'not among those who had turned up that There was also the ovdÔncO o±. Fl 3 Nchemia Nasay, This witness

told tho cou that,..at thai mitoria-. per,od they were xding tho shaia'oa of the father of th apollant,. Ho said that during tho: nht of 15/16 April, himself andotho.perS&flS, arrived. at tho was used. by the guards at 11.00 p0m0 FIT 3 said ththc found a s1u1a of l c 'Jc1lant but the 1pcUant unsolf a P0 T1,o:r to be seeing. Th 3 told the court that the Appo11t 'came 'back at th' last at 500 a 0 m. and asked them if they had heard an alarm at night. The 'Appellant did not se./.D

this appeal. - The learned •l ::..r co;.isidorod the evidence boforo hir:i and found that 11--( 11 r L pro neriy identified and believed the tostironios of 2 T- 3. :)ntho cvidnCo as it was the loarnoa. -trial inagis:. w- fu.]:\ jietifi i in his findin& Tho clofonco was irkfully rejoeod, The pillant 1 s guilt was proved_ beyond reasonable doubt on the two cc c unts, The appeal against convictions is accordinily dismissed. As rogards sentence, thoro uui5 no juitificatian fo ordering tho sonncos -to run consecutively. The offencos were oommj.itod in ono transaction of breaking and stealing by using vao.ic-nco. The Appellant was a first Offender and a vouri nerson arfcd. 22 yoais The sontonoes

Raphael Hando vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1994) [2000] TZHC 225 (12 June 2000)

Judgment

Discussion

Raphael Hando vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1994) [2000] TZHC 225 (12 June 2000)

Judgment

Discussion