EX. D.2921 P.C. Robert vs the United Republic (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1992) [1998] TZHC 2085 (15 July 1998)

.... ni TEE m:a:r COURT OF TANZ1u1ll F 1 DAR fil3 S.A.LA.A.M :r... I 1 APPEWI.TE JURISDICTION }IlgR COT CRIMINAL N0._,1~ OF 19~ {:B'.lom o.,,j,ginal icl.:'lclJ. Case No• 1362 of 1986. of the Disiot Court; of Ila.la District ai KiVUkoni' Bofo:ce · :· Ut1,1SUYA Esqf · Resiclent 14agistl'ate . . EX. D.2921 PeC, RaBERT •• •••••••••nouu •ou•••••• • .APPELL4?IT ( Oric;f.n.al J\oeused) versus . TEE' OOTJml REPUBL!.O,..:·~~ ••• ......... , ..... , .... - ·- .... ..,. ••• P..ESP01:DENT -.••I • . . ( Qp<gt ► -- JUDGMEHT

• BHJ.'n•• J • "',·.~ ►• ·. The. appellant Ex: Folioe Constable No,. ll.2921 P .c, Roberl iTaa ' . . . oo:n"liotod of tho, offenoe o:t staaling by publio G°""1ant under seo-'uion 2"10 and. 265 ,of ;he Pen~ Coda and ·ws aentenood to tll.'ee yocirs ' impti- ... . ... . ... ...., . , - . . . sonment~ ·He. is now· appon.l.inc,- both against eonviotion and_ acmto:1.00. ~ .. .. (.. ~
• . . Tt..1.e faets weo t.t -0110 passenger by tho namo of Habib &..o::odi:.ta. . cli~"- on an ATC plane bou..u1 :fo:r Ar-usha. before teke off• One of us ;p:to- ~ . ' , po-'Gie,s was . a. pistol whioh · wr.s handed over to tho appollant who wcs ·on dut-J o.t thG Airport' Polico Sta/.;ion. The appellant in turn -hant.ocl it over t.Q the first accusec! ,ex Polioa Corporal Aidan Fatw.ci who was_ ~ haJ!c,-o of t!o armoury. Tho pistol 11':.S not·•found whon t.b.e :t'ela.tives of tho claooa.sed ~ . olro.me'tho ·pistol• T!1is lo to the a:rrcst of the appellt ancl·Coporal Atc1.oli Fa.ta.lei who wore than ohgod with stealing by publie sc::i.-vant • . . In his petition of e;ppor.J., the appellant has set out his defonoo vrhioh he had no opP.otuiu.ty to give because ho had absconded du:r:i.ng -'uhe ... • e trtciJ.. He has also ohallongad tho a.etion of the trial. oou:rt. in hoaring, . t::o oaso in his absence. P'.J.e appellant b.oo. no·l;hing to add. to ll.ip potition of appeal. . •. ... "' Mr. Senji, ,le2ecl S·e.ta Attorney, did not support the 0011-viotion 1.i. .resp!)dt of. the ··appolln,.rb ... He argued that according to the evic'\onoo of ~ - . PW3 ~d m the pistol was ht.j,'ldl.Gd. by- the fti!st acc.ua<1d Corporzl. Fatcld; 'fl l I

• -- . 2 - and PW1 -jjolcl JGllo Court that tho 1st a.ocusecl. wa.s in oha.rge of tl:Ql a:rmou:cy alld whan contacted for the pistol he s2.ic'l. that tho pistol : • .... '• , 1 was collected by State I:ot,.se Officials• N:r • Se11C:,-uji submitted further tha-b it was the first aooused and not the appelle.ir~ who !<now about the pistol. Re oonoludd that s:bo)e the prosecution witnesses were sey"ing that it is 1st accused who handled· t- ~~ the gun the appellant couJ.cl not have stolen it, He !IL'a;rGd tI:2:'li the appeal be -llowea.. I a(,TGO wi. th the lea:rned Si:;a-'lie Attorney tha; the. evidence oloa:r].y shows tha·l; it was tho first a.ocused who was hanclec1 over the ·gun and who told tha ·witnesses tha.t State House o:ffioicl.s had. taken tho • Therefore the a,ppellant oouia. 11ot have been involved b the theft of the gm.1. Plf'.3 Joye,;3 Endon saw tha appellant hand crvor ·lihe pistol to the :first acoused. By .then P1i'3 was 1rrorking at the Ai:J:'port Police Station. PY7 Assistant Inspeotor Esther.· said that t.he tus-'a oocused told him that he liai!. given the pistol to a. State Hoμse official and an Indian. Hore eeai.11 tho ev:i.denoa excludes the appellant, Therefore, even wi tho\l.t the def'once of the appellant, the:..case against tha appellant was not pr·oved. b<zyo11d. aJ.1 l'eaole doubt because -iha ovidDnoe given was Pointing at the fhst accused CtP'.'Pol'al Fatalti.• For t2le above reasons, I allow the a.ppeaJ., c_rua.sh the oon:-ri9tion and set asido ·Ii.ha sentonoo. The appellant Ex D 2921 P .c, Roberi; shoUld bo released forthwith unless otherwise law:t'ully hGld.. / .... -···~~-:.---- .. ··• ... __ ,··. . I ---'----- JUDGE 15/7/19$t.. Delivered in Court Mias Kit-rc'll.Ga for the Republic .Appellru.1t D.bsont. ---· ,------··--·-~ ·-·· /uBAHATI JUDGE 15/7/1992. ...