Director of Public Prosecutions vs Wiston Kabiga (HC Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1990) [1990] TZHC 342 (6 December 1990)

• IlT THE I-IIGH COURT OF TANZANIA --,,,_ T )-IBEYA APl'ELL.A'tB} ,JlIJ.ISDICTIOR::: ( r1focyG- :ae.gistry)::' : IUGIT COURT CRIHilJ.AL APPEAL NO. lll, 'OF 1990 ( Origin:11 ·Crim.im.i;;I; C¢.flle,_No 9.EL:of•.:19D9 of the. District Court of .. ::ungwe Dii;ltrict -·at R1.111r::i-re;) J3EP011E: M. MJ SE1-1]J3OJA · T.BE DL.IBC-TOB.· OF. PUJ3LIC PJlOSECUTTOlfS · a o o a.o o. a •• o •• ., o o •• o o llPPELLih'il"T . 'iI. :rn R S U S 0 WISTON K.ABIGi • ~ o e • O e O O o O o:o-~ ~ e ·• e o ·o o o • 0 0 e .v-~ 9 -~ 0 0 o·o b O e e O O RESPO:NDEilIT . . . Mchome 2 ·-3. . This ·rs n.:h n.ppeal.by The DPP. n6ais'{an acquittal of the Respondent, i-Tistciri" Ko..bigi,: by ti,_; Runl,-re District Court· on tt-rn oo-i.L.ts of receiving r,,nd ·:;_retai1i1:{£• ·s·tcilen prperty contr·;y to socti~:n 311(1) · of.the .J?enal Cocle. It vTas '1l0gd 'tt' tie·· tri;:ii· oot t1r.(t, .the respor{cint ;s- found '{n po.ssesici'r~ ,r two ot;rs o.i-rd 13 clinese □ade bulbs which· were. stolen from ,. Y.Ie ·told :t!10 . cot::rt he -i:rai/ given the motor by his; sister Miry KabiGi bt' that s:i.st0r of his denied' to h0,vc d±reh·- the 0s:;::,onderi.t ths ciotrs~ P.s for the' bul.lSs the'. :t'espohlteri-t issued. the polipe: w~ th a 10 cipt_ alleging tie boti[;ht tl:101:1 -fGm. t',·· _;':iano - i}t "ti-id Asian gn,v-. t.le police a stn. t"e1;1ent. whore in 10 clniod to "lmvG: soid-': th~ '!'e spo:t'ident l;le cul bs ,/ Let uo deal fi:.st with the bulbse It is ll0Gd tho'respondcnt said he wr.s :i.ssued with a, .receipt by an Asinno Thn.t :1.si,-:n gave a statement tlmt "'···-'· ·. '• . ,. 1: ·-. ....... . ... : he never sold thQse bulJJs to .thq ;r-0ondent 0 That stateucmt by the Asi2..n -·· ..... .. . ' ..... .., . . ...... who wns not called to testif3, in coW::t was mpronorly a.drai ttecl. It was , . ,, '• . . tendered as'"Exhibit 11 H" at the trialo Lftcr beinc recorded by D/c Shubr.ni it was si 6 111ecl by the Asiru1 Shahnoor l\ierali. Under so~tion 34B (2) of the Dvidence Act 9 1967, a,aon0

the conditions pr0cecl.ent to the· adr;iission of such a sto.tenont isg " ( c) if it contc1ins u doclo.xo.tion by tho person G1okinG it to the effect it is true to the best of his lmouledcc and beliGf and that ho nado tho st2.tomontknoyrin15 that if it 1rern tendered in evidence he wo1,ucl be liable to prosecution for perjury if he Wilfully stated in it anythinc; w}1ich he lme1-1 to be false or did not believe to be true." Tho above condition was ;:10t complied with after thct str.tcr13nt was r.mde. Therefore the District Court coted propo~].y in not relyine on it to convict t~e respondent. •

2 The ·other evidence thc.t such bulbs arc used for street lichts only holds r. -wtiter e=i;thor. A pc:rson can clecide to .use ov.:m n.t his home or outside very high voltage bulbs. As forthe notors tho Re:pu1)lic v.rgues that the Dj_strict Court erred in ho·lding that they _belong to ti10 rosponclent while l1is 01,m witness, his sister· Mary Kn.bigi whom the .. respondent alleGGS to have sent 1:dn the notors denies to hn.ve se.nt "lf~ .:the - sar:ie ones which cxc alleged. to .. 11.tive been stolen. Like th0 trial mngistrc:,to I i,end to ::,,..z-ree with the respondent's explanation _ .. t'i1n,t PW• r:v r:12,y hc'.ve fn.iled to identify t:1os0. motors du0 to the wen.r oiid. tear caused by the lonG lapse of t'imo, • fro11 1379 when she gave the . .. . ~ , respondent those motors to -1990 whop she cane to idol'ltify ther.i., ,-, · iI1J.10ro is o.lsb · an explanation by the respondent that those witnesses ·, '. \•' ... ·· fron Kiwira Coal Mines who iclent"if:i.ed tho ciotors' serial .numbers were shown ..,. ·,. them by 'the police .before. Also. the' entries ·of. the·, soial numbers in .;y •,t• ' the Gods I~~me Note ·are lili.::ely to l4ve been mad~ _.after the police seized these motors f_roci the respondent~· This o:1legc.ti9n l)y the respondent has . . not been s:::.tisfactcirily explained by the prosection. Al'so if these notors were stolon from tho complainants I find no reason why the theft was not dis- covered cnd· repored ;-ir.ll..-,ediately to the police •. " Jfor do I find any reason why tie respondrit wo.s not ch.axged with theft )nstead of· lfoceivin 6 o Like tho Distict Court.I too f°ind that there.arc doubts whether LBM/J,Tivl stolen froo the cqr.ir,lninant. I. therefore disr:iiss .J~~ L J3e !JiCHOME JUDGE 6/12/1990· •