Caster Anthony Honde and Another vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1991) [1991] TZHC 2402 (8 August 1991)

. ;, ... ·. t. ....... ,.·· •' K.L..Zn.IOTO, J .' .·. ' . . JT 1m ~::: C'OL:.T O:..? TDTZ.:JIL':. ..::..T .HTiiLlL ITIG:C cou--ZT c:1rnnti :2?:J.'.L ·no •. 75 OF j9.91 Q.dcina.1 Criminal C2.se Ho• 98 o'f. 1989. of tllo District Court of 1',Ib.in;:;2...:;)ist·:rrct nt llfuinc;o.. · . }}efore :n.·J l.Jccsimongwr,, 3sq-a, Do IIIogist:-c.te

1. C.t..ST-Z:3. J.NTIIO:NY .HONDJf . 2 • F:JTJt IC::J·,L.TG .;. o o o o o o o o o o LPP.::JT,T,.'J.:T8 Versus T.:TI lEPUBLIC mJSPOl'J:>Zi:1T ·JUDGMJ:lll'T ....... -------'---- ' Caste:i:'i lJ1tb.o1t Tiorid.e 9 Fr..nk .I11wru1Com2,nco 2,nd. Petal' IC...-·:.mr .. ;:1c;2, ,rere chnrGed with office b:rc~·.ki1\1 · w"ld ·tec1ling c/s 296'(1.) of the Pencl Coclc. : ... t the end ' . . . ' \ ~ of. the c1cy Cc,ote.::•i :;..-itho.ny :t.ronde was corrv-icted of receivil'Jc:"; stolaa propej.'ty c/s 31'1(1) of tJ.10 PollD,].· Code while -211k I:1;2,.11goma.ngo nd. Pote:;:, ICc,wanga. were . . . .. ( convicted r.s cl1;:-,2:;ed. · hank: l-'Ia.rigomp..11;;0 2J)s0011Q.d d.uril'.lf;' t!10 t:.icl i:>.i'ld. · was . .. . . . . .. : . . . . convicted C::..l'JG. sent6iloed il'l absentia. Caste:.'.'i ,.nth0ny noncle O..l'ld. .Pete:i. Kama11Ba . : •. ·: . I . . . hc:ve appecJled ;,:;2,i11rrl. co·viction ~ se1-i:tenc0 2J.1. their C:f,Jec,J.s b.,we 'been ' I • ., consolidated. ··I 1rill refer them· to cs th0 :filst: E'Jl9.. seco11d. CJ)i)e112 . .nt respectively ' ~ .' ' . 1· • • • There wan c::.'odible evidence thc.t th0 second appellal"...cl. !1.b:od P:D.. 1 .s moto:i:' ·vehicle f.rori1 Go11wec to I--ibi11g9. He was to 'be left 2-.t. r1bincc,. P1-n was :pcid· shs.10j000/= fo::· thc..to This wz: .. s on 29/7/C/;;. The driver of t:.10 notor vehicle . .. was· K.andidus F • J.,r:.0ce, (PW2). Lccorcling to PW2 the second C.IJi:i0llc,.i1t·· went to ' . . Mbinga with t1-ro other people. Ft.u-the2, t}J,01 ... 0 was evide1ce tac .. t dwtrt the same niGht six a:.·med 1ia.nd.its · attacked Ccl tex. F0t1.01 tat ion end. ctol0 V'a:i:'ious . . iteme; includinc o, bm-j_"el of engine. oil.· Tlle wc:,tcan Saidi i:dti.J\j1.l.l..-U (PW3) could not identify th0 ba,ndits. PW2 returned: on the ·same l1ic1t to Songe& a.nd • accordil".£' to M.m he returned with the second appollont , 110. :1is two ' . companions ~ then wont to the· house of _tho first appell21.1t lTho left with them ta Nsa.mc .. viJ.lzge where . the barrel. of il WS deposi·od. On this evidence the ·t,.'.fal · cot hlie~. ·P1-12 cild.' oonvipt,ed the appellcnts as indicatea· D..iJOVC~ .Tlie Republic op;poses these . appeals.·

• 2 - It is o1:iviot:.s thnt the whole case clej?ends on the t0stimon::· of 1'Tf2 0 • :C:ow credible 2l1£J_ J:Clic-1:,le is t:.ie CV'idenco of PW2. First ',;TO ht·:,rc the instuetions whic11 his employer gave hir.1, t1~.t is, to cb:'ivo tl:.c second appellant to-m>:mr,-e .. -e!l'ld. l.oave him thcie •.. J.io Ha.$ not inst::·Ectocl to retu:rn ui t1 -the s0concl 2i);pellant. nor to cen:y "11":f 1iitte belo!)f;i:1.C to second c.ppellant, Thon despite the fa,ct thd:. he ;i.'otur.DGd ,ri'th. t.ho seoo1ld. .appalla.nt •·· u.nd o. bar-.cel of oD 0 ine oil to Songea tow;.1 c..;:ld: ovently :Uc went to !isrunala vilh.go he mivc:' :·01·,o:ctcd this fact to his cinployor (Ptf1) • D'.c nc'.i:'ely ~ the ce-.r c.nd 1ront mio. P~-11 c to knou t'.;)out this fnct f:::or.1 tho pol ice-. In hiding this fo,ct Pl was not. e, person JTho could be relied u;;,on. IIe must have somethil1G to c.;ain in not tolling F.n, Ro could as uoll ;1c.•··.Yo been part ai'ld pt.reel of t!12.t band of bandits who atta.clccd tho Cal tex Pet:, 0 01 Station. Pi'T2 doos not not D,I'J?Oa.l' to bO aa..r.q:J.ie-,blo as~~ nw.cist:.:-D,tc. a.ppoared to ... , ___ - . .......____ . believe hira. r.t is notod that P1t2 told tl1~ :9oli9c on ·2/8~ .... Ii'Q:i:' three clear dcys P'12 decided to hido his CD1Ployc;;,. ut there is OJOOt~~,:-=~~tor. _____ . It appoa""'s tru: .. t 110 cffor-t was maclo to soc..rch t110 _f 7 rst a.ppcllo.nt. 2.t ~ • •• j villagc 9 his n.llcc;od home whe::ro tho oil we,s left •. It has 00011 tt:.'GOC\ th.it PTt2 could not !lc·wo. misskcn .tho fj::·ct· c.ppollr..nt .;takitlG into· c,cc6tu1t the /act thot they we:::o 5.11 tho ··same □ oto:.' · 0 ,0'.J.-:i:le f o a. long tin1co · l7ith :..·co:pcci; tho evidence· on J.>cco.'.i:'d sholS tlld J?Y:2 1:ict. tho first appellant fo:c· tho f'i:i:'st ti.me• during thz.t niGht. .PW2 did not otdo l1ow he uas a,blo to 1cooeniso hiti,· at first appcllni1t.is ilOSCo :I - • ' Tio did not state. whcJ.'G . ' ' . tho· fi:;:-st c,ppcllo.nt so.i · iri tho car, nor did ·ho say for .how. 10:.1.:.; 110 :.hQs boon . .. . ··:. . ·. - . . ·,. ' with fix-st appellc:rit .. f:t-om SOngoa town to Esmnale, vil],.ago. :.c it. w;:,..s his fi:rst timo to soc tlic· f:Li:-s·t appellant ho should have :~~~~d ·q:w ho lc.1ew :t:-t Msclll)cle, villD.go was the horac village of tho· firs-t cppollt o · . : · · Tho,: fir·st c,:p:J?Ollcnt, though bcl.::,tcdly,' 1clic4 _9n the defoace -of alibi m1d. .celled two dc:fonoo w!tncssCS 0 who stated t:1.2:t on' 'the niht, of. 30/7/9~ they were w.ith the fi.i:at• t1,ppcl1Mt e,t a pa.t'ty frhoc·· he slcpj;, tho:·o c.nd.· i?CY Gscortd him' 00.:d,7 fn ·tho morning of 31/7/89 The learned Stdo Lttornay ·:, . .. . , .. hs•·argucd tlu:;t the appollcint could h2.vc oft th0 pt.rty, uont to 11sDJnala. a.."ld then rotu;:,ned. to the party• · lccordine to. tlq cvidon<;:o of P:·!2 t.hc fil"st appellant lived• o.t ?-Ia.nzeso who:rc ho c:.llogcd.iy mot· him. Th? oi:i.2:.:>GC: i;3hot . shows th.at fi.t'st r,j?pollru1t resides d Habatini. 1ccordil1G to t\10 evidence . . . . . ,i;.:1e al)pellant · of Chris.tophcz- Tind.wa who wo.s shown as Dlll o,ncl Otto Chuma (D:·!2 L wa.s .attending r. party r,t Lizbow. aica·whcro ho si6.:pt· .'>.fr~~oil'.ide--.-;s:ee11;-b~cd ~i,. , •. ·/•,.· ··: .• . .,·# --:, .... _ ..... ',. I• t':-0 1:::: :·J).r

... ,/··"'' _,,,. ... -3- ✓-.,,· i . I i ,, mro doubt is 02..st on tho rolic;.bili ty of Pli2 as to whotho:::- tl10 !1ouso thoy wel1' to on tJ:3.2,t n.)1t ne,s roalJ,:y thd of the first appollo1t. In my t,ssossr.1011t of tho ovidoncc of' Pl?2 I have formed tllc opinion, for what I h.2,vo stc..tcd 2,bov0, thc.t PW-2 5.s not a reliable 2,110. e:-:odi'blc wi tncs:3. I!is evidence should not have beo1, c1ccoptod wi tllotit cr.ution pa't't.icula.dy when )c; tried to l1idc tllo ino:i.donco from his 011ploro:,:, for· two clea.:;:- di,ys. ':-Tith due -rqspoct thorefo:;:'e I am not prop2,;:ocl to o.g:roo with tho J.c:pv.blio o.nd tho,. triel cow:-t ttd tho appollants r .:;dl t lla.d boon proved i)Oj-ond nll doubt. I accordin 0 J.y ru.low the 2..J?]?Odo, quash comri<:tion end sot aide tho sontoncos :i.raposod and order t:22.t tl10 a,:ppollants be ::.oloc,sod .forthwish unlo.ss otl10;.'1>Tiso lawft.ulr helcl. t% Judge DcliVo:i:•cd -this St:i dr..y of %--iust, 1991 -""b Jud.go ~ \ l .. .... -· \ \ \ ' \ "'-.!