Peter Yustus vs Republic (HC Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1990) [1990] TZHC 293 (3 October 1990)

,· ", I , II, ., -t " . IN-THE·HIGH COURT OF ThNZANiii. . AT A}WSHA APPETJLA'r.E .J.URlSDIC'l'ION Hr°GH~ 6t1:;~~CR;;,μ, APPEAL. ,No. 84/90 . . ... (OiQ;+ t . .tmfti,:i C~··- ~p• .).~2 .:of 198:9 ... of e: ·'O'istrict C.our:ti oif :MoShi Distr•ict· at Mosh·i • Befort!· B} R,o .. KhILEMBo', Ez qo ': :Rsigent Magistrate • • • J • .· • . ., ··,:. ·f I "' • . • .IPETER YlJStJFt.J o ... !.;'!,·f,o•Q.•d~ •• ;<·'oe•.•r•.••.APPELLANT.; , . 1 ·; 1 ::· • 1 ·:.t:·t ',.., .:· ( OJ.9i'nal Accused) 1 ,• .f .·• ..- " ~ ,I• -1- .,. ,·.• ♦ i . - - •• . .i.. :··· :·w . , ·-".· . - .. ,_ -. Y:fSlJS: • - . • .. THE REl?;UBLlGP.:;;.<)- •••.••.•• :.·::.·.·-:oe:·l:.·.RESONDENT .; .. -. . :".·(Original.P.roJ·cut:orY; ----..-...--------------,.,------------- ·=- .•• : .:· ., .. ,. · ·.JUDGMENT· .. MROSO L...i! .. -_ ' : . .- . :'J • . . ! . .;. 1 • The appllant together with three thers·were pr6secuted . ! : .' • ' • . i.th.s= Disi:rict Court of Moshi ·for burglary and the°ft contra: .. .. . ~ .. .. . . . . . .. . . ~ . . .. to_. C:t-iori's" 294_. anrl 265 respecti yely. <?f.:; the i?.ena1 Code •. .- .T.he ·: .. ·.• . . ., . . . ... appelhmt nd the O.t;'igin.al .first accused, one Stanslaus Andf;;a; were fund ·-guilt; n; r.onvicted .of burglary but acqitted of. : .... :.. . . . . . ,, ' . t.¢t.: ·.; Th~ other twq .ac1;us2d persons. were acquitted on both ' . ,... ' .. counts· b-ccnus1.: there was no -=--ridence at all against th1::m. • : ,. : ; • • •. ,' , • r j·.',u~,L, ··.The 1:ri.:i.l 1 r_esidf\t magiptrat conyicted the appellant . . ; ,• '.' ~ . . . . . ' '. and1 S:bansinus because sh•·:helieved the e-Yidenc:e· of P.W.l - ! . . , . •·· ... i i • ·:: - t ~ ; ; : ; • Phiwon· 'Lh:-ti1po· and Po\112· ,.:.;· P.tlilipina Philipa,: b6'th who i'dirnd 'that 'i:·. the hlp-iof .' tub~ ligt .i, the l:>urgled room . ~ th:ey·w~r·e ·oblto~e and;-.-ientify h~~e two accus·ed persons •. The- " - . : . . . . !. ;;--.: .. :" "; : . ' :.; ' • .' . .: . wi tnsscs ulso told the t-r4"al court that the accused persons weJ;fe J. •,··. !.' ; . • ., armed with •simes' and .. they st;qle a radio, shoes anti a milling. mac~~~a, a1rqg-th,er. hings. athr curiously, !al'though the ·:., -i~~~n<.l r..:sidet magistrate: blieved that property was stolen as a result of the Jgurgla.i.y, he. said ther. was· no evidence · , • , , r ••• • that it was the appellantaP.:d Stanslaus who stole the property! • l . • . C • • •• ; • • The logic 0f thet conclusioh would be that the trial magistrate belicvod P.W.l an.d P.W2 onJ.y when they said it was th·e appellant and Stanslaus who burgled their residential house but did not ., belive them when they said it was the appellant and Stanslaus who stole from the· house.· · · ,- ... ..

,l 2 .. In any case, even if in fact the theft was done by other people who were in !·s.~me group with the appellant, the doctrine of common in!~t:it.ic:inould apply to implicate the appellant witr{.t.h:e tief-'t-$···'.'•· Be that as ·'it ~ 9 }~ · It is howevr;, doubtful if the case ; ,' • 1·· • · •• against th!c! appE:fiant was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. . .. . . The conviction _wei,s based on both. identification of the burglars and credibility of P.Wol and P.W.2) ! ' . Assuming thei:-e was a tube light- on in the burgled room and 'i:he api:ieliant as a __ neighbour ·it :w:ould be possible for 'I .. •. •.J,'....,.I.' • both P.W.::t.JmcL l?.o:Wo2 to see··and :identify the appellant. But . ' did P.W.l and P.w.2 intact see and i~~ntify the burglars? U they did one would expect them to'. haye :s,aid so to the ten Cell leadr · and village chairman to whc;>m ·the.burglary was allege,gy . ' . ' report.Gd the following morning. Now, these witnesses may or ,,--may not hav'-' rpo:rted · 0 to· those• leade~ •. -Unfortunately none .--/ ,....,-- of~.those ladets were called :tq testify at- the trial. It is .. . <· ~ ,. . . . - ·not k:110.\in. why the p·rosecμtion .i't:hought, it· fi:t to ·1eave out 'both those"t.wo 'p6t'ni'iall~· use;ul :;:'tness-e • .-, -I·f· either· of them.• • ' . •f , •J1' •• • 1 w:errl d'cill-cd ?i~ · a .-1.tr:iess' ·1 t w6uld ha_v.e helped to· clear the. oubt .· • ,,•, .J ..... wh.e'.i:her th.:: naf!lμS. _of• the two convicted : p.ers ons .. wer-e. menti oried , I " • , · ~ . •I . which would have gone a long ws- t'o treng.then .the·cred-ib:liity of P.w.1·and P\yo2. I aiso ted to ,,'thik that had the names ••• I • .- ,· of th ·two.convicted persons, ben .. promp,tly mentioned to: either • . ' • . • • •• ' : ,;, ,\ .• J tho .ten cell leader .or the village. chairrnati the militia. 1W0\1ld hae l;)een ~~~:U.).zE;d t;" search. t:He pr,Jtds .. .s-.o!- or -e\teh: arrest:-_'··- .. . . . . . ,., J: ~ ... . . . . . the :onv5.c·ted :. persons. well before. :the ,-policeman - P .w.s. . . ·, D7CPL •. Ally. vii.ted the village two i:;ipys _ af•ter. the .event - ..._ . . -.' \ ;' ' ' ' ' ' ·on· 11/5/89 - . to search the premises of ·and arrest, the:. appellant. I' : ·,-. . . • . I am,also.su.1;prised.thet.i.f in_fact P·.W..;l and P • .W.2 had .. 1c. . ,. ,, • ·r • • •' • .l ' repol;'.'tod. that . tl].e aP,pe.l,lant w,a1:t , .. the burg_ar, the s•eare did ;: ~ :. : ·- ' I , f · . • .. • ~ ' l · not .Tgin at_ ?i-; hprn prt lseq?.i;:.~;"::.: , \ ->._, ,/:; C. ♦· • . ' . t:. ,, .. ., ·· .. ·• ...

3 . In viow of those aspects of the case as I have ("onsiderec1 above, I ·chink it is possible that the nal!'e of the appellant had b(;)cm mcritioned as just one of the suspects and the yidence of P.w.1 and P.w .. 2 that they Jaw him as . being one of the ' burglars was probaby a mere after~hought. A reasonable . . doubt existed and the learned trial resident magistrate should h_ave ucqui t·ted him. I must therefore quash ·the conviction of burglary and set aside the sentence· of three years.·· , - imprisonment. He is. to be set free. ,forthwith unles·s. hald foi: a lawful cause. / At Arusha: (Jo A .. Mroso) 3/10/90 JUDGE Mr. Lundu, State Attorney: present.