Bahati s/o Njanga vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1999) [1999] TZHC 270 (6 September 1999)

IN .l.'Hl!: HIGIT COL'P...l 1 OF 11.ANZANIA Ar HBEYA HIGH COUR.£1 cnnrrn.AL APPEAL NO., 21 OF 1999 ( ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 135. OF 1998 MBOZI DIS.i.1RICI1 COURI1) B.lu!fil1I s/o NJANGA·o o., o •., • o., .,. • o o ... o o o o o.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., .,APPELLt..N"I1 VERSUS 'EE'P'CJBLIC O O • e o .,.ova o (I, o o tt v o " o o c"' ll o o o d -o -o o .,. • • o • e o o • &RJ!SPQNDmf·.[1 ,,'.'!. - ;:_.,. ·' JUDGEMENT ,Rambura· Pl'lM (EJ l l1he appellant one Bahati Njango. 1-m.s convicted of breal<:ing into a building on committing a.n offence ·c/s 296 ( 1) .·?f t.he Penc1.l Code a,.-id was sentenced to 5 years impris.onment by ·i;he District Country J.Tbozi. Being dissa.tisfied with the decision he filed this appeal on the following groundsg- a.d.duced 1 11 l1hat the evidence /by t11e prosecution side did not establish and prove the offence of breaking il;lto a building as alleged in the charge sheet and pnxticuars of the offence. 2, That, the appellant was not found with any or some parts the stolen propertyo 3. rhat, it could not be invnlid with certainly that the appellant was the only person who had the golden opportunity to commit the crilnc with which he was charged. 4., I1hat~ it was wrong in law and fact to believe that the appellant conduct on the 3rd and 4th day of November, 1998 had anything to do witl1 the commission of the alleged crime., 5., Since the prosecutions case was not proved to the required standard of proof H wa.s wrong in law and fact to convict the appellanto As the appellant did not wish to bo present hea.ring proceeded in his absence~ l'-'.ir., Mu.lokozi who appeared for the Republic did not support the • conviction on the reason th2t H was □ erely based on suspicion rather than circumstantial evidencen He alleged even for circumstantial evidence it ha.s to be pointed to the guilt of the accused without giving room to some other possibilities~ In the above case he agreed th2.t oxi.y one could have entered the ya:id and stole the said motor cycle after it was parked by the appellant some tbI'ee days earlies~ Since even the Republic does no·i; support the conviction for want of sufficient evidence then I have nothing to do at the end of the appeal but to allow the appeal~

.,· ''! '• 2 - ?he appellant should be r~le1;,sed. immediately from pris0n unless he is lawful :held for some other reasons,. • ;S oA .. U. W0-inbu:ra .. PRTIWIPAL RESIDEJIT.l1 MAGISi 1 RA:2~ ';~~ ~· (E.J) 6/9/1999 • . ' l'.;\ • .