Akida Mohamed Mathani vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1990) [1990] TZHC 326 (24 November 1990)

,,, ,- C:l.-.:'9- cs. -s._ · ·. IG:;:'ELL;.'J.1b JURISDI<.;TIOIJ . HIGH COUr1T CRirUiiiil A;i.' .8LL il!C';, 41 OF 199.0 O .. ,IGIN:L CRir:::iLL CLB NO. 506 OF 1988 OF THE DISTRICT COUHT OF r.:osm DISTRICT AT IIOSI-IT. BEFOi1E A.A. NCHHIBI EZQ. RESID111T MAGISTRNI1E JIJCTDL. I.JOHJ:J'LL:lll lfl!i.T:'·=lJ'IT o •• •••••••••••• • .••••••••••••• ~ p.;TELL!JJT .. ViRSUS r.1 1 I-~ ... ·.,~ R 1 i"',· UBL. 1· C RTi''S"'"·o;,r.·,,wT

• . JJ e. . 0 e. 0 0 0 DO. 0 e O e. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 Cl(; O O O.c O o,O C, 0 • .,Cf, .:J. J.J.J!!d. NCHALLLy J • JUDGM:GNT -~ . The appellant, one· Akida Mohwnodi Ntwa.ni, rn;.S jointly char god with three oth...::t: e,ccusorl pi.;rsons before the District Court at Noshi with robbery vJi th. ·violence c/ss 285 and 286 of the renal Code, Cap. 16' T. Laws. The ap):)cllc'.11~ bhd the 3rd accused who has not appo;:.led, one Frank s/o Issa Mi11.ja., wc:te convicted of theft c/s 265 of tho renal Code, Cap. 16 ;r. Laws Uhdor alternative verdict which could only ' .. be ontorcd bndor t}:6 provisions of section 300 of tho Criminal ;·rocedure J:..ct, 85. They wore tJ.10n sentenced to imprisonment. · The appellan't vas sontcnced to 36 mi:mths imprisonment, while the 31•d accused i-:clS sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. The a.ppcllont · ha.s arpcakd to this court e,gainst "60th conviction nnd sentence. The Rerublic C.id. not support tho conviction o.nd sentence that Hero entcrd i111.d ir.1pcscd on the aprclhmt. Mr. i:t·iclu.nda 1 loarned St,--.te ' ~ ( ' Att8rn0y, concodocl to tl:.e appoal in i s ontiroty. After hcc:.rine this cr,pal. today, I rightc.1.1·,ny allowed the n.ppeal in its entirety. I ordered thu immcdic!.to r::ilcaso of the appellant frc)l'n rrison aftor qu.,..sh.i.ng tho _conviction and sotting aside tho sentcmce of imrrisoD.rnont thd w~ entered 2.11c: passed by tho trial lm•rnr court • I reserved ro: .. sons for r.iy decision. The arpoal wns ho2..rd in the abs,:mce of thl:l appellant who did not wish to be present 2,t tho henring of his appeal. Appellant's grounds of appeal wore ncvortholcss gi von duo consideratfon on appeal• Tho Nhole ••• /2

.. 2 The wholo ovic1-oncc thd w2.S adduced d the trial did not imrlicatc tho an;icllant ·i11 cny material pa.rticul2.r. Tho a:-11,cllant wr:.s not soon and . identified c.t tho scone of crime, nor was ho fou.ncl in possession of m1y of the propertJ r.Hogod· to· have been stolon during th-3 incidGnt. The only nexus tending to implicate tho nrpcl12..nt in this chc.re;e is very fo.rfetchcd, th,'.',t is I thnt he is the frioncl of tho 3rd accu □ cd, cllld th,:t_ at one. ti.mo ofter tho c_ommission, of ·t:10so offences, the Also on Y":t another. time r::ftor. tlri~:: in.cident- tho::·appcllnnt .had: gone tc-, ;- · • 6 1 s l;use ruid took sc,mc.: r,r.oporty that_ had boon SCli.t to· Y.6 by tho 3rd accused • .. Thet tho e..pp0llt).l'lt tol¢1. ~ j_'.6. tho.t ho had bc011. sont by th~--.3rc1. accused to t:-.ucc those __ th_il;.c;s vhich are bol,iovcd to be SC'f.1:: of thc:-stolon thin6s , ·r - . . . from the .co_mplninant in this case • Som0 of·,tho stolon thihes in this= . . case r10re found in "i:i'..-i.o house of HJ .6 upon scDXch therein, and it was established tlmt _tLo:;) thins ,were sent t11--ro b/ tho 3rd nccv.sod., i .• E01·rnvor, us Mr. l'i,-Jidm1dn, learned State Atto1•:-.1;:,y, subini tted :tho fricndsl~ip bctwe_on the 3rd ._q,ccused and the C.pj,1cllnnt, and tho rest of tho circumstc.nccs tu:-c not established sufficiently to base a convictiort on the; cl).);:-'Cllc',.nt in this c2.se. 'E.10s0 circumstances cln not point irresistlblJ tp th:; euil t of tho 2.ppellcnt in the charge. I am qui to satisfied th,·;i; u.pc'~cr. those circumstMccs t::i.c churgo was not r,rovod ! ~ •.. • 01\ the c.rpcllnnt beyond roasonL:ble doubt, so he: ,·m,s. wrongly convicted and pvnishod. Iforoovor, I hc,ve fro.led to understand. m1dor i·ihat-:·propor legal proccduro tho 3rd _accv,8oct,,u1cl tho 2.rp0llant c·ould be c0nvfct·ed of . ,. simple thc;ft on. tho fo..cts •M4. _circv.mstanccs of this case. ·If m1Ythin, t4c 3rd accused _i-;ho 1-ras rroved to _11,wc- boon founcl in po·ssossion, a,plei t constructively, :of some of the stolen :,:iroporty, could be . . ~ : . : ·. :. ., . .. . . imputed as the a.ctunl thief .only unclor tho doctrine of :r0ccr1t r;osscssion which tho trinl magistrate did not, l1owevur, consider o..i.,.d discuss in his jude,rocnt. Under the circumstances of this case, and hewing rogc,rd to t!10 112-ture of property allcr;ccl to h2.vc b en stolen, which can readily chru.1e:;e hcnds ·c'.lld tho timo fr.ctor from the commission of the offenc0s to tho time ,W.6 1 s house WC'.S se[.'.I'chod and part of the loot found therein, I e.n1 not satisfiod thd -tho r,rincipl0 of rocc:nt · posscssi0n oouli to ;.l'opo.rly D.trU:ed. to:' thu. 3:r;-cl accused to irnputo him as the actual tl'i.L.f thereof• I am of th0 considered· view thnt, tinder. o ./3

• • • • 3 ' .... Under the oirvumsta.nces of th.is case, the 3rd accused is _just a guilty rocej.vcr, and ho should ho.ve been convict"tc.i.. of receiving stolen property c/s 311(1) of tho l"cnal Code, Cap. 16 hinz1,ic.1 La,ws. Under the provisions of section 306 of the C.T".A., 85·1 substitute a conviction of receiving stolen property for that of simple theft in rcsx,oct of the 3rd accused. Tho sentence of 18 months imprisonment that uas imposed by the trial court is· loft. to stai1d and is horoby confirmed. In tlrn finEl i:'110.lysis, I am sntisfh,d th[~-t this a,ppe:al ii:i mori torious ancl it is on tho foregoing roo.,sons tlmt I allmrncl it in its cmtircty. . Appeal allOi,;cd. MDN/JJM M.D. NCHII.LLA, · JUDGE. 24/11/1990. ~