Juma Halfani Ramadhani vs Republic (DC Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2296 (12 August 1998)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANL& ATDODb& APPELLATE JtJRISICt'IQN. (DC) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 337 Orig±nal Criminal Case No. 59 of 1994 of the. District Court of Dddoma District at Dodoma, Before G.A. Uraasa, Esq., P. District Magistrate J(JMA HALFANI RAMADI{ANI '.. • .' . APPELLANT versus THE REPUBLIC . • • .• • . 1 • • • • . RESPONDENT J U DG M E N •T KYANPQ' J. The appellant and tw other person,who have not appealed, were tried by the District Court of Dodoma, at Dodoma, on a charge Of stealing c/s'265 f the Penal Code and they were e.ahvicted, They were then sentenced tè.imprithcnment fer four (4) years. The appellant was aggrieved by the conviction and sentene and now appeals to this urt. 'O' The evidence grounding the appellant's and his c.11eagues' c)nvictiGns was that on 2/3/91+ at around 8.pO a.m Mwanahamii Mhandos (PW.l), the complainant, who was by then a student at Mvumi Medical Training Hospital, had bag, containing various items, including items of clàthing, stolen at the Bus Stand, Dodoma, when she was waiting to board a bus there. She had kept her bag n and the ground when she was waiting for the buE Z she suddenly realised that it (the bag) had been removed and had disappeared: She immediately made a.repert to the police.' If did not take lng before the appellant and his colleagues allegedly started to sell the complainant's stclen items to people in town Pehema Moshi (PW'2) and Laurentia Sombe '(PW,3) were amongst the witnesses who testjfied in the curt below that the appellant and his two colleagues sc1d items of clàthings to them On +3.9+, which items were later identified tO be amongst the complainant's belongings stolen on 2.394. To PW,2 they allegedly

• 2 - sold two skirts and a blouse and to PW.3 they sold a kitenge piece of cloth and a blouse d The trial magistrate accepted the evidence of.PW.2 and PW.3 and believed these witnesses, after finding that they were witnesses of truth. Applying the doctrine of recent possession he found that were the ones the appellant his colleagues wiioc 2f who stole the complainants bag together with its contents at the Bus Stand. Before me the appellant contended that there was no evidence linking him to the theft in this case. Mr. Masaju, learned State Attorney, f.r the Republic agreed with him and declined to support the • appellant's conviction. He said it is only the Other convicts who were mentioned by the witnesses to have sold the stolen items to them and not the appellant. With respect, I am of the view myself that there was ample and cogent evidence linking the appellant as well to the theft. It.is true that the ether witnesses who said.they ) bought the stolen items did not mention the appellant, but PW.2 • and PW.3 did mention the appellant and they said he and his • colleagues were acting together in selling the items of clothing that which they sold to them (PW.2 & PW.3). •PW.2 said in factLthe appellant is the one who was handed, to keep, the money realised from the sale of the skirts and blouse to her. As stated already, the trial magistrate believed these witnesses. I find nothing on my part to show that he erred in anyway in accepting these evidence and in acting on it t convict the appellant. The learned magistrate also correctly applied the doctrine of recent possession in this case as the stolen items were sold by the appellant and his colleagues hardly two days from the date when they were stolen. He also iightly found that there was ample evidence corroborating the • evidence of PW.2 and PW.3as, on the evidence of the investigating Pelice Officer D 884 fl/C Patric (Pw.6), it was the appellant and who led him (Pw06) his colleguer. themselveso PW Ø 2 and PW.3 wherethe stolen items were recovered. The appellant's defence, that he was arrested on the uspiciop that he was involved in ganibling, was, in the circumstances a hollow one indeed.

3 3 In' the final result, I hold, as did the court of trial, that the. appellant's guilt in this case was established beyond all reasonable doubt and he was rightly convicted. His appeal to this court against conviction is therefore dismissed 0 As regards sentence,it appears to be rather on the high side, but I see no good grounds for interferfig with it 0 I hereby. confirm it, together with those imposedon the appeliarxtts colleagues. /7 (L%A,A.(KYANDO • DODOM. 12.801998 , Delivered this 12 Day of August, 1998, in the presence • of Mr. Kagaigai, State Attorney and the app11ant, '(LA.A."KYANDO) JUDGE

• I.