Adam Henjawale & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No 49 of 1998) [1999] TZHC 399 (16 April 1999)

,. .. t MK ."' 'A J

• .. .:0..::..~...,,...' . IN THi HIGH COUrtT Ol 'l'ANtANIA AT NJOMBL (,SONGEA ~t:i.Gl':;J 1 RY) DI fl',:Ic:1 1 co 1 1.Lti' 'F soNG:ii:A DL3T1UCT A'r soNG:C:A V&<SUS JUDGMZNT ... •--"'-·-····- ._, __ - ........ ', reforr0d tf".I c:>s th1.> first c:ind - s1::cllihd. :ppellants r0sp.:;ctivoly w€r,;; charged I • ' • with and cr-nvict0cl by the District Curt ~f Simg;.;-a ttf causing griev•us harm ccntrary t0 section 225 l"\f th-:1 -l?nal Ci:L:.e nnd were uacm sentc:nc,3d t• three years' imprisonmc-nt and were: r,fdc:re<l t" 'pe.y a sum Xf .Shs. 2d,0M/;:.: as ct>mpensation to th-..: crimplc:iin2nt f·-r the injury h: suffereui as a result •r the assault ci:-,mmittvd ,.,n hie. Je:i.ng dissatisfied by that decisiln they. heve now appc.:alt.:d tri tl1is cr-urt. · 'l'he facts r;f the c2s;_,, as '"stablish..:·d in th0 tril ;Jistrict Ceurt.; are brief end simpl<io 1 l 1 h0y ar...: n.s f::lll'ws.· On 1st' i:'1;1bruary 19,7 tn ir abo~~ · mind-night thJ crmpleinont wo.s o.ssaultcd. by t e appellants. , ;.ccording t•. the m0dical r-=--prrt (...;xh. ?., 1) th" c 0 0mplainant sus-:tain0ciC' ct weunds en the right elbc-w and on both kne:e joints •. · The woune. 611 tho elb•·w was mossurod i to be 2 Cm x 1¼ cm x 1 cm d;Jop. · /1.pparcntly the knee jGints hd only a,bbr~~sie;. ;, The compl'"i.r.i.a1t f'ur-1:-h, '. tole'. the ·court that the assault apen him was unvwrrant0d and was 11±thont :;::~e,s,.cnebl::; c6use. 'i.'his asserti""ns find-. support in the appdh·nt.s I own defenc.es., .l

. -· .. I 'l.o. 2 .;.J • ~ ,. •• :-:- . 1 rhe eppellents dl' not deny assaulting the cemplainant, i It is J.n .,.

• their defonce, which is., rath..;r short. that the compleinnt and tw . .,thers whe they nam-.;d ns J0Hi,3 KPJN.Ji-1. and K..'..3WBLZ KIUNDi~ are;:; It is their cns0 that t_hat r,;0t0rial m(')ment, accbrding notors gfats rust1ers. -. '"· r ,. t• them well past .... ,. 3 e I clr, ck in tho small hurs 'lf the m·"rnirtg_, , thoy were on their rlitine night-we.tch guard whercup('n, thuy bumped .int th"' trio in rather s-.picitμs ·' circumstanct::iSo 'l'h0y (1':.pp0llents) quiz,zt;d' thvm end hving no1t been "".satisfied : 4 by their answers, which ,1,r0 rc:th-:.,r vague and left a l•t t- ·be desired• they ,unced up,•n thomo '.fhe appellents' ,; asetions find' supptrt in the · laudd arid. cl0er testimonies ·f 1/.ti.2 1.-i;: •. Tih PNCIS 1 ?.1.J+ FAB'.ti ... N PE'rOO MOYO and I/d,5 DiLVID KOM!L. 1 ncrndy the cl".mplainnt was a s.ispected thif and that he had rec0ivc-d whet he hcd bargaod so h speak. l; In 0ssoncb, that wos the evidence 1 / which wa.s laid in the scales in this . ,/ cas0. 1 rh0 l,:;,arn0d trial megistrate r0j<.::cted the appellants' versi•n end arrivec'. I, I i'I I at th.1;: cbnclusion that th0 appellants' 'guilt had b.::ien pr•ed ttt thi· hilt.-. f I i •. .• I ' •. I novl) cJnxiously and dispassfonat<)ly ct'Jnsider0d the evidence adduced '( " I by the competing p.crties. ;.s I clpprehend the l2w, the evidence.: . . adueed degs not ostnblish the_ffence charged :This c,-'tl.t.t hes time and again reiteral< ,,: that for an ""ffonc0 t--i fall within the ari1bit of the previsiehs t1J see~;itn ,,1 ...... ~ • • II • d, _ 225 ef the Pane]., Cr ,.'.G, gr1ev1.,·us hc:1rmJ rws b be defiLed within the 11e,anJ.J1g tf section 5 of the Penal c~ te, nam2ly i'1wrm which amettnts t•""a maili.r I ; dangerous har,_ r ser i ·,usly or perm{n<:1ritly injurGs health •r which is . likely so tr injure h0alth, (r er tir eny perman0nt or Si;;rious which;' extnd"s t~ perment d°isfigurement I injury to Dny cxt.srne.l fr int0rnn1 .rgan" I, ,, member or sense:;. (See: ~.'.':':4.·~1.£.I)~~--fI:J_E_,i_Y.)3.[·f97_7 H.c.D. i'i-·81). I By r0a1:fon f the frrcg--. ing, and by applicetion ttf the provisiM'rs I t:f s0ctirm ';;!JO of th0 crimind Prcedure .. ct, 1985 the trfa.1 court sh.uld ,'I havo conv:i.ct0·ct- th: ppellents c. f esscult causing actual bodily ham C"1}trary tc s..::ction 241 of the Fencl c, de. 1 1 \s this was not dane, this court des powers it nn-.r on th3 s:xcusc - f r.i· ·ev:;.siocl/onc: upAn appliceti«l ef section _yo f'f tl10 s2.id act. I now turn to th0 o.ppeal 8g2inst sont0ncc. In scnt0ncing the app&llcmts th.::: snt,mc:i.ng rnogistrak r•bsurvdd that ;:thieves beating•i are 'C

.. ;,,- 3 - ni•w en th0 incree.se and thet there is need t•, curb such tende¢ie~ I am respectfully in full Dgreem0n~ with the sentenceing magistrate the.t ;thiev0s - b(:;nting;; sbould n1t be 10ft unabated; c::s the aet is - 8 ~ unlowful end this C"Urt takes judicial notice c,f the fa.ct that n•w seve!'al },t lives have been lost uncl0r this e.xis.e,. 'rhis ceurt has a ble duty to avert end/or to r<JV<)rso this t'en<l which is not only barbaric but puts the cltok becko Ou.r:,· 1 is El 1 civilis0d Mcicty Gnd cherishes the fl I ' ,.,_,, rule •f lew.• Nr- {n0 shoul::.l be all6wed tl'I take the law in his .• ,wn handis II ·,1 It is o.n the bc?.sis rf the foegoing thd I decline to intervene~; ,; ' I rlJ J· Th.e sentence r-f three years and th~ c<mpcmsation erder c2.11 n•t, under the . . ' ~ e t. circumstances, be rGgo.rdcJcl as .9.x.~~s~.-e. h justify tho interreY.tion"'y this court. j : t . .. In the upsht-t, tho ;;ppenl aga:i.nst sntencc fails and is aeeerdingly dismissed. It is s8-rdar0d ,, DELIVi:.aBD .'.r NJOMJ.C: this 16th iday of April 1999 in the presenee -~ '. I .. ef Miss Keckha 1 State i:..ttb>:"ney, for ,the rt0public. I J .J • JJil.CL:.:A , JUDGB 1'1 Ii 16/4/99, '· :B . 'i ,, " b'ii this is a true cpy tf the t.rig~al. SONGZA. 1

l L (. ·t,. ·.# .. ,, .: . - ...; .·.,; .., '.J '· .. !·•1.:c .~ rit~- ·~-. ... , ·. •: ;:!, 1.;' .,. ·•· ,, .. .,. .. •; 4 .. .. I '\ • .! , :. /'.•:~ ''I,, • •· • •··r , . • • ~,}\ .:.::. .' .' l ·'\ ;( '':.. '< . '" ,,, ·- ... :-~.::., •.:,,.,-./~~A\1> . ' •.

• • r f •· . . la ' .... ;.,. . ' ·.,' :.; . . J