Mkude, J.: Keneth Soul Kizito is a young man aged fifteen in 1990 when he was arrested an charged with robbery c/s 285 of the Penal Code. He was found guilty as D charged and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment on 10/4/91 by the District Court of Ilala at Kisutu. The court also found the accused guilty of assault causing actual bodily E harm and sentenced him to six months imprisonment. The court purported to act under section 300 (1) of the criminal Procedure Act in entering a conviction of assault causing actual bodily harm as there was evidence that the accused stabbed P.W.2 with a knife while committing the robbery and stealing Shs.700/= from the witness.
As the stabbing of P.W.2 was done in order to retain the sum of Shs.700/= the F accused had stolen one offence only was committed and not two. The offence of robbery of which the accused was convicted consisted in stealing the money and the use of violence on the victim in furtherance of the theft. It was therefore wrong for the trial court to invoke the provisions of section 300 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. That section provides as follows: G
300-(1) when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence and such combination is proved but the remaining particulars are not proved he may be convicted of H the minor offence although he was not charged with it. (emphasis supplied).
It is clear from these provisions that the offence of assault causing actual bodily harm could stand alone only if the evidence was not sufficient to establish the offence of I robbery, as for example, where
the offence of theft was not proved. But in the present case there was evidence to A prove both the theft and the assault in furtherance of the theft. The combination of these two constitutes the offence of robbery. For these reasons I quash the conviction of assault causing actual bodily harm and set aside the sentence of six months imprisonment. B
The offence of robbery was proved and the conviction is well founded. However, since the accused was below sixteen years when he was convicted the learned District Magistrate erred when he imposed a sentence of fifteen years imprisonment under the Minimum Sentences Act, 1972. The applicable law is the children and Young C Persons Ordinance. In the result the sentence of fifteen years imprisonment is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant is to be sent back to the District Court of Ilala at Kisutu for sentence is accordance with the Children and Young Persons Ordinance. It is so ordered. D
Order accordingly.
E
________________