Mashaka Iddi vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1988) [1988] TZHC 478 (1 August 1988)

J . MASHAK.A ·-• .· IN TH~ HIGH ·COURT OF TANZANIA £.'t,1,RU SHA • .APPELLLTE JURISDICTION {Arusha Registrr.): CRIMINAL f..PPEAL NO. $I __ OE;, I988 (Original Moshi RM' s Court Gr~ c. No. 43/1988) ( G/F GR • .APP. NO.· 82/1988) (BEFORE H. E. MAKLNGE Esqo, R2SID_ENT MAGISTRATE) IDD: ........... ·• ·• · ............. ·, -• ..... · ••. :. ;-. ......... . r .., ·o••···.APPELL~. . .. . . . .. THE REPUBLIC: •••• ·.-.· •••••••• ~ •. -·.:. ••••••• , ••• -'.•:• •• ~- .•.• ~., .RESPONDENT• il. U D G M E N T. M.UNl[O 2 J. : ./I'his is· an appeal froin Moshi Distict Court Criminal Case No.43 .. . .. . of 1988. In the 'sa·id case, the Ist appella:nt Mashaka Iddi and the · 2nd. appellant Mdki ;aaj.s were jbintly charged' with. ,t.he_ offence . ,of grievoui-hJ. c/;:- 225 of the penal code. They were both convicted and sentenced to 3 yes imprisonment. They were also each ordered • to pay compensat,i~~ in the sum of . shs. 7, EIJO/= to- the complainant -~ . ' . ... . . after ~~rving thei!r' •prison sentences. Tv,o: other co_ - ac.cused namely .. sklema.n Juma/Accused No.2 and Haruni Athumani, AccUsf:)d No.~ were joi_ntly charged with the appellants but they we:re convict:ed of the . ie~~-e~ ffep.c· ·;·f-co'inm~~- ~ssault c/s 240 ,of the penal- ~ode. and 'entened J<t pay·'_shs. 5,000/= fine or I2 mo.nths imprisonment 'in 'defait' The' finwere paid. Both Accused No.2 and,,?. were .:. - ; ~ . . ' . . : : 'ordera.· to ri'~ hs .. 7 ,000/=, componsa,tion t the _coraplaihant. No . . . appeal ha.f? b!3en pref'erred by Accused No.2 and 3 •.

• ·.· .. , . .. . : . The complainant, one Abrahaman Juma deposed as 'l/I. H!;l stated that on the material ni[;ht ho drove into the Country · Sida 13; sit~~{/-at Mabogini Village where he foud the. iur :··;. •;,_; ~ -· ._4: ~~:, .t . ·.: · ·accused person standing on the rii;ht side of· .the electrically lit e,rtranc'e•. Someone threw a stone. at the front- mudgl.fard of, . . ' '., .s:.:· the complainant 1 s .. vehicle so P\t'I stopped· to. find out v;ho pelted· . . . . , . the stone. . .. __ ...:.

2 - There and then the 2nd and 3rd accused reacted by assaulting the complainant causil'lg him to fall down. The two appellants joined in the attack fortJirtg the· victim to raise ·an alarm thereby attracting some people to the scene. Meanwhile the Ist appellant seized a knife from the 2nd appellant and stabbed he complainant on the left shoulder causing traum'and'.seyere haemorrhage resulting in unconsciousness. The complainant ."lot his shs. 3, 200/= and a wrist ·watch in the skirmish.· He· lost consciousness. which he regained two ' • ··1 ;. • . .. . days later at the· K.C;M.C. hospital where he was admitted for . . eight days~ RJI tenderea·· hi~ PF.3 fotrn.'as Exhil:it ,PI.· After being discharged from the hospital the complainant had the app++~~t$ . " ,. . t . . -·. • .. • • • ' • • .. ·- .. ~ .. • ' • • • . • . . • .. .. • • • •• • . arrested ,and charged accordingly ·whererter they wor~, convict eel and sentenced to three years imprisonment. The appellan~ .Z:<P.<i!(J, tl:le·· ! ' • .. " • - . • • .. • " . • • ... , ~ ~ • •. • .. .. • •' • • • • . \ defonco of ·aHb± ·c·a:tegori:do.lJ:y ·c1enying the offence. In their respecti vc memorandum of app.eal, both, appellants cqntend that they were not idcnti,fied by. the vd,. tness which was· why even the armed l'(lilitia.men who were· guarding the gate. of the . . I material bar did not arrest the suspects. The appellants .said thaf·'· .· the knife used for the vrounding \Yas not· teriderecf as: an· exhibit. . I:.' • ·i::. . . . · .... :··· . . They argued that the prosecution did .not prove the case· against them beyond aJ.:L reasonble doubt. so the trial court- -0ugh;i ;iiq \mve. acquitted them. · The :iearned .State Attorney supported qnly the· conviction of the J;st a;p1ce;i,L,J.Tl .y/ho snatched the knife· from the 2nd appellant and st_abbed., t;he ,co.mplai!lant. on the left ••shoulder~ Hi3 submitted . . : .• : 1 • . that the second appellant ws not a party to the-. stahb{ni; thf::)nce . ~ .·. . . ' .. . . .. ' .. . ' " the trial c.<.)Urt qg;ht :t,o have .aqquitted him. • ' h' • ••• ''·,. . . . The issue is whether the appellants grievously harm.ea. the ... ·,•· . . '. complainant_. Indeed the first appe],lant. gr:abbed the .knife fyom the second appellant ad. pierc,eq. the complainant on the left. shoulder right in the· eyes o:f' the three BYf3 nitnes .. ses, PWI, ·H/.2 and PW • .3. The area was well lit with c.lectric .lights so the conditions for identification were favourable., Tn the light of the straight forward evidence; of the said three eye witnesses; "not the least probability ex_isted in the alibi of th~. f~~~t appellant~ There was no common intention betv1Ben the appellants which means the second appellant was not a party to the stabbing • ••••• ~3/ The first J • •\ ...... \ •

,- r i ; 'I The _first' appellant solely and wantonly stabbed the complainant on the left shoulder~ In the ·circumstances the appeU must be allowed for the _second appelle,nt, Mdriki Hn.misi. The second appellant is to be set at ·liberty forthwith unless otherwise detained for other laVlful caU.se. The first appellant's appetl is dismissed in its entirety as it is devoid of merito It.is So Ordered. E. I'., MUNUO JUDGE I/8/1988$ Delivered at 1..rusha thi I/8/I988 in the presence of: Mr. 'Kimomogoro, State Attorney. Court Clerk:- Ferdinand Kigingi.