Godbless Aletaramo vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 90 OF 1999; Misc Criminal Application No. 17 of 1999; Original Criminal Case No. 147 OF 1999) [1999] TZHC 299 (23 December 1999)

---

• ' ... AT MCf;Hr MISC .. CRIMI.Nf.:.L l1PPLICiL'l 1 ION NC. 17 O? ':SS-9 c/f Criminal PP• No. 90 OF 1999 ORIGINAL CRil'UNftL C,illE NC. 147 O? ,9 Y? . Hfl.I DISTRICT CGURT. GODBLESS l,LETll.Rl\i''IC •• , .• o • " •• , _·:.E Versus THE REPUBLIC • • • • • •. • • • • • • • • • • RSSPCf~~~h' JUDGEMENT ·- BEFORE: ·L:--:s~-MCH~. J • • ..-,:::c.:,:s--- -,.c.a-• ............ ...=.• ~ !:":¥---" .~~ The appellants, Godbless Aletaramo, Er:rrnaDuel ,Sal-:,vi ::'E1ii:t aL,.-'. :_;•1:or::0n .L1Pael were jointly charged with Stea1ing ccntre..ry to section 265 oi the Penal Code. They were found guilt'! by the Hai District Court (La.mtey D.M.). and sentenced to two ·:/ears imp::::isorn11G!jt ·;_; .. .• Being arnrievecl, they have now preferred appeals against t'6th convictio:10 a."ld sent,3nces. Horth shs. 1,675 tOOO/= t.he property o::: 1JiDrt11r:i. San,•cie:; ,.-.:::. s col en.:. :;est of it was hm:1cver 1 1 . 1· d . s2:rvantt, l . t t th E:i,manue Sa, evi E ia was omestic -!le cor::i:i._ainan s ::tv e material time He na.me.d the other accused as co--participants to the crime and when the original 3rd accused, was arrested 1 .1e s:-::.01r.red !here th•2 stolen property was hidden. They went ano. recovered 1 st accuse:.1 :ErDr:,an 1 ,wl told the trial . . . . , , __ :td court he was forced by the police to nan,c the o~~~-s::' accu,sea ) accused Salomoni says he was also assaulted by the police and he tcld lies. 4 e 1 accused put up the defence of an·: alibi. for · As submitted by both learned counsel, for the appelL.:it a.ncl/the Republic.the recovering of the stolen property corroborates the statement f -1-h ' ' l 1 st d h ' t 1 . 1-1 ~ d ' - l d .,, rd o ., e,. origina accuse t at ne s o e 1.-ri. 1 en arm. )re accu.se • • :;, ..a af oeiug named showed where the property w2.s hidden. But the original 4 tb. accused, as the learned .Senior State t.ttornef concedas was just na.med by a co-accused. No body sa1r1 him stealing. Nor was he found in possession of the .stolen property. No 011e saw him bidding the property where it was later four::d. He was therefore convicted crmtrary to the pr.ovisiOJ1s of section 33( 1) oi' tLe Law of Eviderice Act, 1967 • _____ .., __ ·· .. ~ .... - .. - .... •-· ......... .._ .. , .. ·· ... --•---······ ..... .-...,•----·· For these reasons I di.s;niss t10 appeal of the original 1st and 3rd accused pe.:»sons Enunanuel Sa.lcvi Elio. o.:1d Solomon Anael, repecti vel;,; in their :Jntir•ty and allow tha~~ of the original 11th accusad. 1 Godbless Aletar. against bqth convic.t,ion and sentenceo He is to be released from prison immed.iatel;y, t' /. ';/{. r,~· 130 23/12/1999 /

.1 ...... ,., .