Patrick Kiyule vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1990) [1990] TZHC 337 (30 November 1990)

t. , . Ichono 9 Jo nr THE :nan APPTIJLL/1.TE J:IRISDICTIOH (JIT])0Jra Il0cistry) :nan COURT,;!•d.i.·{:tMUTfJ., A?FP,J,.L l'J.0o 67 OF 1990 ( O:eiginf;il.Criniri;.J. CtGO. ·No. 17 of ·1990 of ·-·~ 1 ' . . tl10 District Co0 1 .. rt of Wjqr1be District -' . a.t Hjot1be) PATRlCK KIYUL3 o • a o o co 0, o ~ o o-o o • llJJ?ZLL/:JT (Originul Accused) 'l'B.G REPUBLIC • o o o o o. o o.• ... o o o • o PJlJSPOlIDENT , . · ·· (Original ?rosccutor) .JUDG:Jl'.'!I:INT Th_~ ,ai?,:pe::).lg,p.t_, Pat:r'ick Kiyulo was :cl1i1rg0d with Sho}.)bren.kinc and St.00-ling . . contrarfY :f;o sections 296 arid 265 of the ·Perial Cod.ea He -ms found ,:;uil tJr ·and :J ... , • sentenced to_ .f:j_ve yc,:'.i.."S iI1}?..risoni11efft1> · ::.=re· now a;>pcc.ls·· against, bot].::: .con'kiction c.nd senton?o , The evidence :relied on by the posocution is that on 27/1/90 2.t :1.bout 8000 l)oElo a shop boloninc to tho tnombWe Folk Develop1-;10nt School in H jor.11)0 District wo.s broken into. 1-.. nw::lJer _of people c±>o found coi:1ing out of it <::.i1d:·one of thoD w::s ca:rryi113 a l":oxo The burc;la.ri( were ·c11~~s_ed but not a.pprehended. T'..J.0 a 1 )po1Lu1t was identified to be [:.r:im1G t:.io t;!ioves,., B:is_b.ousos vmro visit_od by tho vilL:-_,g'crs loc'kine; fo:c lii:10 · He wd.s fo,,n1d in ono of his •:w.ivos· 1 hou.ses., -wt~n ho was searched he wc.,s found with pro:pe1•ty sinilcr to thc..t w:1ich was st.oib-fi:11 He was o..rrested and chn.rgod. Tho o..ppello.nts defence is t!1r:.t he dicl not tn.ko pru:t in tho hlrglnry,. He was asleop at his second wife's when the vill'1Gors knockod c...nd took h:i.r:i nway wi tl1 his bicyclo. They then wont to tho shop nncl t"ook sorao goods out of it o..nd thoso Goods &re tho ones tendered in court by tho prosecution alleging they wore found in tho appollont 1 s ho)1sc 0 l\1rso yn.bG.to the learned Stc,tG Lttornoy for the Respondent did not support the conviction., She vlo.s justified-• Tho idontific1.1.tion of the n.ppol_lant by· t10 prosecution nitnessos at · night was not }Jropor. Tl.1ow1·h one of tl10 PWs doscribecl tho np:;;>cHlo.nt n.s wom-ing a · striped sl.1irt n.nd worn out trousers they o.11 say t:.,c ::1ppolfo.nt :::.nd

2 otl1or thieves wore run.nine away wi tl: t!-.:.oir bo.cks facing t;.10 ido:1tifying wi tnosses., It is not easy to identif;y 0, person fror:i tho bn.ck at nittit. So I an not sntisfied thr.t the appellants identification was watertight. The goods o.llogod to 1:10 p:1rt qf tho stolen pro 1 1orty wore not f •. identified eithoro T'D.o PWs say just that -thos: arc · 11 ·sir.1ila.r 1 "-,to .tl;.OSO in tho shop. J3y merely 1,eing 11 sir:1ilor 11 , it does· not ncan tl1at tho 6 ood.s cro iio.it · of those stolon frm.1 the shopo In fc.ct the appoll2 .. nt· 1 s d_efcnco tli::;.t. no st9lon goo_ds i'!cro found· in- his hoU$e seems more erodible. Tb.o prosecution wi tnessos· nay l1f:1VC tc1kon · those goods fro □ tho· shop to got ·cm cxhipit ·-fo fix:tl.io n.ppoi'li!nt with n~ \110 ,.· ' . appollcilt alloaese Otherwise I find no rosson Wh;\r they- should. scnrcli. - · · th0 appellant• s 11ous0 without. calling tb.o o.ppe],lont• s tert-housos-ccll;....loo.4or • .... -- •• ·.1 Tho coll loadcr'Dl-l.II told the t:ric.l court that those who a:Prostcd the appellant did not search his house~ For these reasons I find thC1.t tho prosecution did. not prove its case against t110 appellant to tho rquh•od. ·stdaid. I therefore allow tb.is app0alp qUc".'.sh tho conviction d ·s;t o.'sido th, soi;itonco iD].)OSOd upon tllc appellant• I order too t1mt tho o.ppollant be roturnod_ ;'"is bicycle. ":' . ,;;,.,··. ·' .. '' . - 'ti Jj_(,; fy . . . (' -<- ;¼:r• ~ ~ ,..,\ .. //.;.: . LB MI . •7 , •. '. 1'1/ ~~ .. ' , . . .. . - .. ' .. ,.r \y . l·liJ.: •. '··-· . .. r; .. : .t. '.. "'i. I ~• • . ·. . .. "·. ...... _ . .. '