Ignas Pius vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No 20/1999) [1999] TZHC 300 (29 December 1999)

IN T"iliil DIOO: CvDil:I' 01:t TA::-fkJUA CRDU1i!AL...AF.PiU.1 IiC, 20/1999 (Origi;_1aJ..· Crim.i.nal Case Ifo.6 of 1993 of tl.10 District Court o:f Pangani J)i.:3t:dot at Pani3c .. 11i) IGlffiS PIUS V1TJ TUB Ri.ilPUi3LIC RillSHJ;jJ.liNT JU.DGDrIENT T'nc appellant, I(].II.iiS PIUS, uas cll.argud with and crictod by tho l)istrict Court of :l?a.ngani in Crimir.& Ca.s0 Ho.6 of 1990 ·,of the offence of armed robbo:cy contrary to secti011s 285 and 286. of tac Penal Code. and was sontcnoocl to t1irty (30) yea,:-c:-3 im1>risonmont.. Being acJrioved by that decision he has now apPealcd to thic cOLU.""to Tho r:alient facts ground.il1c; t'.10 oaso may be told l;.o a::; follows. On May 29, 1997 on or about 8030 ].)om four armed ba...11clits ra.iebd the resident house -cum-shop of RT.1 llb .. :ms J0i11T., rt is in ovL~onoc th.at the latter lives at Ji.bka Villa[}), Panga."li Did~~-::· ~~-·: :.: in evidence tL.at the p:rosant appellant was one a.mong tho ba,1cli t:i 1:-110 raided l"JJ.1. It is further i,,,. o evidence that the ba:nclits were aru:u. ui t;1 a muzzlo-loaclo:r ( 11 goboro 0 ), i•roodcn toy-pistols ans sticks. Botk · PJ.1 and his wife RT,, 2 I--I:i l.XU.:mI MOROGORO. tolcl tho court th2.t on tho material date the bancli ts broke into t;2oir house brawlis1i11g their ueapons. It is further in ovidc,nco that dlJ.iinc; tllc oncountor tho cf'I)ollant fired his nuzzled-loader twice in tho air j_n his quest to dcopoil him of his money. roughened It is also in ovidonce that tho ba;.1(1-i~3 ·· • • .. · .{. b..i.Ji1 by ossaul ting him nd.iscriminatoly ui th stickso

2 It is aJ.so in tho testimcr1.v of I'J.1 and Ri.2 tllat the ba..11di ts during the encounter ra,.'1.sacked tho Ghop and ma.clc aua,y with shs.800 1 000/= Prl.1 's wrist watch. a...n.d sovoral otl1.or i ton13 of proporfzy- ·1r:1icll they stuffed into. plastic bag-s. It is aJ.so in ovidonco that on t il.o following r.iorning (JO. 5•-97); tho opis,:>d.-01 was reported to the Pa11e;-e;1i Police Station. Thcroon tllo vheels of investigation wore ii'!lt:10.:.1:i.atoly sot in aotion, culminating in tho arrest of one i:fl.fl.,iiA]:J who asnistod tho !)Olico in. their investigation leading to tho a}:)::,ollant's house boj_ng scarcllod. Tho o-v:i.cloncc of Pl'lo3 Detective Sm.ccnt IS.JACK was to t:10 c:c:foct th.at llo uas tho one wilo headed tho soarch-11arty and t:--;.at thoy 011).y F1ana3,'0d to rotriovu a bag w:iich Pffo 1 identified as one among tho i toms of pro:pcrty wore stolon 0.u.ring tho robbery op-f.sri.d'C!}• It is furth.or in the tostimo1w of ro.3 the,t on January 28, 1998 the appellant was ar.rostod.. p;;.3 tolcl. tho court that at tllo tj_mo of arrest tho appellant uas wearing a wrist watch (Todi.P.I) ull.ich identified and. assorted that ho ua.s dcopoilod wl.wn llis su.op was raised b-y- armed bandits. Lastly, there uas tho cvidcacc of ro.,4 Ri:J,:liJriJ1.i.U 111Jm.T1ffT w:.iich was to the effect that ho is PiloI's no:ljibou.r aad that ho ,m,s at home w!ion P.U.I 1 s residential houso-c1.-11ll-shop was rair,ocl b:r a:nncd bancli ts. It is in his tosti- moey that ho heard two gunshotp ti..nating from Prl.I's hotJ.so but ho the guts to come out and r::::.::.___ __ _:1.o. It can bo gloa:nod from tho record of procoodings of t]10 trial court that tho appellant docl:1.ncd to make llis Qcfoncob It is cour.ion C,Tou.nd that the appellant elected to iomain mute bo1Je,1mo tho trml r,12,e,istratc had. turned down his plea to havo his trial co,1cluctod in t110 coLrrt of tho Rosidont Magistrate ratl.or tJ.1ro1 tho Dlstrict Court of Paxt&,ani. It is not irrelevant to mention that savo for the appollantts plea of not r~uilty, T'.:10 ap-pollant had stood. mute throughout his tr:La.J... It can also be e:;loanod from tho :rocord that tho appellant did not profo.r an a})i:;oal against tl1c dodision of tho trial court ovur rLJling his PI""c.lii•Gr to have his trial concluctod by the court of the Resident I-h.;istrate at Ta11cc.•

3 Not supro.si1c1Y, tho trial rn.'1,(;i.nt1"'at0 foLmd tllat there ·i-ras a..11 imprec;:;i vo bod;r of ovidcno0 a&,'2.J.;y:-t the ai,:90lla.rri, Ccnrddo:ci.l'1G tho 0videnco ae,a:i.sn t tho la ttor as a 1{1010 and in tho absence of a:qytl,:i.11[,' to the cont:ro.:cy- found. t;.10 a,g:peJ.la,;:1t' 1 s c.;-u.i.l t 0stabl:Ls!1.0cl to tll.e hilt. )Jo, thus convicted him as charf;;od and im1:,osed the statutory m:i.nimu:n sen tencc of th.irv..r (30) hears. The aJ.)pellant'·s memora.71dl.1Gl of a17:,,ea.l containocl fourteen ( 14): g-..counds, which, in rqy view, o:rystaJ.izos to tlu'Oo main groun.e.s.. First, tho evidence adduced d.oes not su:p:port or justify co:motio1;t of tb.c ooofonce of armed. robbo:cy-. S 0 ooncUy 1 · wl:i.cthor tho al)l)Ollant was stii:f-lciGntly idontified as being one tho be..ncl.i ts, who raicl.ocl a,;.1cl assailed Pffo 1 0:1 tho matorj_aJ. date. Thirdly 1 whether c.o;i:not tho trial. t1a.c,.1..strato's decision to :ref-use him leave to have his trial.. transferred to tho court of tac Resident Nagistrate amounted to a denial a j ustico wari-w.1t.ilg quashing bir.; otmviction and setting aside the scnto:nco imposed thereon. :Boforo mo, the aPIJOllant protested his innoccnco. lio urged this court to adopt his L10momnclum in toto e.nd allow his ap-poal as the proceecline:,.,.· b 0 fo:L'O tl:te lower court uere a mockc:cy of j v.sticc. The case for tho P£.PUblio/:k,:J1,o:,JQi1t was advocated u1)on by Mr. Kitainda, lcamodS:tate ft;to:i.:. 0 oy. Ho subniittod to tho effect that t:i.e evidence adduced falls short of' ..--,+...,'hl.·i 8h:l.113 tho offonce o:f acmcd robbe:ry. It is his contention that as the of':.'.:,:."1.sivo uoapons wore not used i.Il the coumi- ssion of the offence tho conviction Oa,.'1 ;.1ot stand. IIo u.rccu. -t;llis court to quash tho conv:i.otion and substi tu.to ·Lo1oof tli.o o:r:'fcnco of ordinarJ, robbe:cy. This beh1G a first aP})Oal I 11.Z.,VO ta.k01'l pains to :rovicw tho evidence on · record. I must confess that which ovor way you look at tho case tlloro in ,:io wey you can :faw. t the decision of tho trtaJ:/convict:i.nc; C8Urte T'.ao tr-lal. :District C.ourt l1ad fully addrossocl its mii.1d to tho Cl"Oclibili ts of ·ni tnesses, and I see no roason to intorfo:ro u:l.th it findix1gs. (Soo ~. ?iaCITGEl .tJ'm JilWT:w.JR V.3 ( 1970) Ii.Lo ll-1 303 and OK.dTO Y!.l (1;72} E...Aa 32)

4 r now tu.n1 to the question wl:et: .• c;c the proceec.l.in(;'S before the trj_aJ. court were a tl.enial ana./or a mocke:z~:r of ;ju.stico. In the instant cas,e the appellant stood raute out of sheer Jl!& i o-t aad not tb.:.:ou.gi visitation of God or being a deal' mute. AJ3 rightly abse:r<v-od by the tr:i.al raa.(;istrato, if the 1 . dbt' ~ .... ,'dt d' 1 • appel ant was a~;rieve ,y ne a.eo:i.sJ_on ,r;.:..:1.01.1 aa -u.rn.0 Qovm n1.s application to transfer the ca.oe t:o t;.1e court of Resicle,.1t Harr-i.strate, ll.e should have a:i;:,i10dod. to this court ae;'ainst that~.. l!..s he elected not to do so 1 then t1ere was no ju.stificatio;'.l. for his electi1-i;; to stand mute. The appellant can not now- be heard to blame the court... (See. lVITJRe..aID Alm SIX orrr&R vg,. (1S'56) 23 E.A.C .. A.o 562). The ap:;iellant l.L3,s also arn:u:e-d t!.1at t:10 evidGnco of identification .., was not one tb.at a conviction colllc1. be 6-rou.'1.ded in law., T1ero is ave~ whelming eviclonce (See. HJ'Js 1,2, a;ncl 4) that the a2)pellant is a person who is well la.10H11 to theri6 The epiooclo lasted rather 10l1S thus affordin~ ample opportunity for the wi tnesoos (FiT.1 and PU.2} to see hear and identify their assa~ 1-J"e.xt, I now turn to the centre.I issue, namely, u::..ethcr or not tho evidence on record supports aJ'ld/01~ ;ju:::;tifiosthc cirrvicti011 for the offence of' anned robbet as opposed to othi=--r l nr.ier offence k1101zn in law. T".u.0 evidence of PJo 1, Pff.2 and IW.4 aro- all to t}.:o offcct that a e,·un, comnonly knoim in Kiswahili as a t 1 coborc"· was usocl ,:..tl:cinc tllc :z:-aid4 T7.:i.ey all told the court that twosb.o'$ were fired in the air. The question tht arises therefrom, is whether or not sucl-:. a11 act falls u:i.t].::.in the arnbi t of a.I",3-d robbe:cy-tt as stipulated. unclor the provisions o::: .act Ko. 10 of 19G9. In the instant case the GVidenco adduced .b.as shown that the appellant ,mo armod . vri th a gun (go bore h The latter is ux:,doubtodly a "da.n-iRQt. OJ; offens:j.ye -;-regpon ~ + · + .t' · .,, · -"' + · '.>c f .,.:;a mq,·,1,-;M v• .,.:in "'ue m3-rn-ri:;:· 0.- ,.,",.., -1..on 2iJu o · tll0 PcnaJ. code as read to&,-othor with Act No.10 of 1989. T'.aoush·: t:.-.oro is no express ancl s1XJcific defini ti011 of what consti tutos ttarmod robbe:cyu 5_t is clear to ii10 that if a dangerous or offensive w0a1)011 or instrument is used in tho cotu.--se of a robbery ouch ai"l act constitutes "anned robbcryn in to:rms of the lau as amended by .Act Uo.10 of 1989. (S00. CR.A:PPGal no~ 19> of 1994 CNi - at Dar es Salaam -

5 11ICIJJ,..EL JOJEPH VR per Lubuva, J".,A),. U:i. th res1:iect it is on this regard that I am not in agTomuont ,n tl1 ll'fr. Ki. ta:i.nda tllat the oflonco invol Ylnz- the al)2,,ellant was not armed robbe:cy-. Having ro@U'd. to the foregoi,.1c;., I am satisfied t].1at the trial mag.istratc iva..<J perfectly anti tl0d to do what he aid and that J.us finding conol u.::d. on ancl the ser1Z"'ll'lCQ ri:o-J;~d o.ut a.ro ull i)i--oporly f oundod in lawo T1ue a::;,pc].la,.Tt's 001i1p].ain•·~s a,:;:.,:l:;:1st tho trial ma,:;·istrato arc, in nv candid view, unt011abloo Inrtho ovont, I dismiss tho a~~;~,oal in its ont:Li.,,,..Jt'iJ ~ 00.liID at TA.U(~this 29th fu\y of Ibcombcr, 1999. JUDGE 29. 12 .. 1999