Hiito Doho vs Republic (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 1988) [1990] TZHC 597 (31 December 1990)

f/IUNU0 1 J. ;.,! v.; ... c_ $'---- IN THE HIGH COURT CF TMJZ;;NIA .AT ,RUSH::. APPELL4TE JUTIISDICTICN HIGH CCURT C 1 UMINilL 1PPEf;L NOl 205 OF 1988 ORIGJN.L C'1IMIN1;L C,SE NO. 220 OF 1987 OF THB DIST:qrcT COURT OF Hr,JIU,NG DIST:ncrri lT B;1B;1TI BEFORE N. K •. MABONDO, Esq; PR INC IP L DIST1ICT r.P,'1IST'i,1TF:. HIITI s/o. DOHO ••• 0 ••• , •••••• I\PPBLLANT Versus THE REPUBLIC ••oooo•••••• RESPrNl):r:wr J U D G M E N T ' This is an ap-eal from Hanang District Court Criminal Case No. . . 220 ·of 1987 vJherein 2 accused persons namely:- Accused No. 1 Hiiti Doha and Accused No. 2 Hamisi Hassan were jointly charged with robbery -with violence ·c/s 285 and 286 of the penal code. It is alleged th:at on the 23/10/1987 at abou·t 10.00 a.m. at Santa Bar at Babati within.Arusha Region, both accused jointly ' and together robbed cash shs. 200/ from om· 6atherine Petro. The trial court convicted both accused thereby sent0ncing them to 7 years- imprisonment respectively. Aaosed No. 1 i appeRling against the conviction end sentence. tccused No. 2 did not appeal. At thE> trial, the complairHmt Cat.herine, Petro deposed as PW 1. She state that she was dresing up when both accusea inveed her room at midday on the material day demanding monPy. he 1st acdused seized the complainant by the neck and also struck her with the stick he was armed with. PW surrendered cash she •. 200/= tc Pve herRel. T~e accused persons then ran away. PW 2 ~ho was ~resent 1uting the inci'dent corroborated the testimony of the com1)lainant •. Accused No. 1 was later arrested by PW, 3 Clp Ste ken and charged with thE;> offence of robbery with violence. In his sworn defenc€ the 1st accused denied the charge. He said that the complainant was his ex-paramour so case to put him in trcuble._ He called DW 2 Yuda complainant was the 1st accused's girl friend. to remain silent in defence. she concocted the S°'r_1, Spirian t of\that the Accused No. 2 ·chose ........••.•.• •.• ... /2 ....

" " . .,.. oc lt == In his memorandum of appeal the appellant statPd that the evidence a·1duced at the trial is- not su-fficient tn suDport a l , convidion, ,that the trial magistrate -rred in f'in<iing that PW2,,Choistina Anel .corroborated the evidence of the· c·omplainant and that the cashier at the material ·hotel ought to have been ·called as a prosecution witness. The issue is thether t_he appelli:!nt robbe.d thP complainant. The evidence cf the two eye witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 is fully corroborativE>. The appellant stormed into the room,of the complainantiroo~- and assaulted her with a stick demanding money. The comnlainant J surrendere<i her shs. 200/= to the ap~ellant tc avoid.-further attack. The 1st accused's defencE> that the co~~lainant concncte<l the ese · ;:igainst him is meritless in the'· c·ircumstances • . The appeil is devoid of merit. Accordingly the a"eal is dismissed. It is so Ordered. At /1rusha this .Appellant: in Republic: Mr. ENM/vm JUDGE. 31/12/1990.- 31/12/1990. p_e r.s on Kimomogor o, St'ate attorney.

• ◄ :"' •