Martin  S/O Ernest vs Republic [1987] TZHC 38 (15 October 1987)


Mwalusanya, J.:  The appellant in this appeal Martin s/o Ernest was charged and convicted of the offence of being in possession of property suspected to have been G stolen or unlawfully obtained c/o 312 (b) of the Penal Code Cap. 16.  He was sentenced to two years imprisonment.  He is now appealing against conviction and sentence.
It was not in dispute at the trial that the appellant was a police officer stationed at H Kwimba Township.  There was a house which accommodated many other policemen including the appellant, but each had his own room.  On 22/9/86 it was reported that a firearm was stolen from Kwimba Police Station and so a point was made of searching a room of each of the policemen.  At about 8.30 p.m. Insp. Bernard Maduhu (PW.1) I accompanied by other policemen

like D/Copl. Kajoki (PW.2) and Sgt. John (PW.3) and P/C Boniphace (PW.4) A proceeded to search the rooms of the various policemen.  In the accused's room under his bed there was found a car's windscreen and a fanbelt of a vehicle.  When asked where he got those things, it is said the appellant explained that he had seized them from B a certain driver from Mwanza called Nassoro whom he suspected to have had stolen the same.  He said that he asked the said Nassoro to produce the receipts so that the said items could be released.  He said that up to that time, the said Nassoro had not returned. C
At the trial the appellant denied that the alleged items were found in his room nor that he had ever told his arresters that the items belonged to one Nassoro.  He testified that the items were planted on him by the policemen who conducted the search.
However the trial court found the prosecution witnesses to be truthful witnesses and D hence the conviction.  I have no ground to fault the trial court, as the case depended on the matter of the credibility of the witnesses for which the trial court was better situated to assess.  The memorandum of appeal does not raise any point worthy of consideration.  This was a clear case in which the appellant had failed to give a reasonable explanation E to how he came by the property found with him.  The conviction was rightly registered.
As regards sentence, I find that it was reasonable and met the justice of the case.  In the event the appeal is dismissed in its entirely.  Order accordingly F
Appeal dismissed.


▲ To the top