Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Moshi Appeals Court confirms 30 year sentence for robber

Discussion in 'Jukwaa la Sheria (The Law Forum)' started by Rutashubanyuma, Mar 5, 2011.

  1. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #1
    Mar 5, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,342
    Likes Received: 476
    Trophy Points: 180
    Moshi Appeals Court confirms 30 year sentence for robber






    From PETER TEMBA in Moshi, 4th March 2011 @ 12:00, Total Comments: 0, Hits: 68

    THE Court of Appeal sitting in Arusha City has dismissed in its entirety an appeal by one Ally Fumito who was convicted of an armed robbery offence and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment and ordered to pay one third of 320,000/- which was stolen by three accused persons.

    He was also ordered to pay 20,000/- as compensation for the pain suffered by the complainant, one Ally Hussein (PW1). The appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court in Arusha.


    The fact of the case are that on April 11, 2004 at 2.00 am at Ngarenaro village within Kiteto District, Manyara Region, PW1 heard a knock on the door and slowly went to find out what was happening.


    On his way to the door, PW1 met three people, along the corridor, whom he identified by face with the help of light from a hurricane lamp, including the appellant. PW1 was assaulted by one of those three people who stabbed PWI and his wife, Amina Abdallah (PW2) was threatened but not injured.


    The bandits ransacked the house and grabbed 320,000/- which PW2 had kept under the bed. On May 17, 2005, the appellant was arrested and charged accordingly.


    In his defence, the appellant categorically denied that he was involved in the commission of the offence he was charged with. He raised a defence of alibi, that since February, 2004, he left Kiteto and went to Mererani to dig in the mines for almost a year.


    In their judgement, Justices, Harold Nsekela, Natalia Kimaro and Mbarouk Salum Mbarouk said the issue of identification of the appellant would dispose of the appeal before them.


    State Attorney, Ms Javelin Rugaihuruza had submitted that the appellant was sufficiently identified by PW1 and PW2 at the time of the incident.


    She said the appellant was not a stranger to PW1 and PW2, who knew him before the incident, stating that even the appellant had not denied the fact.


    ''We think, since the appellant was well known to PW1 and PW2, who even called him by his name at the scene of crime and later at the police station, and by the help of the light of the hurricane lamp, under those circumstances, there is no doubt that the appellant was sufficiently identified at the scene of crime,'' the Justices of Appeal concluded.


    ''Having reached this conclusion, we think, it is not necessary for us to consider and determine the other five grounds of complaint against the High Court judgement,'' the comment of the justices added.
     
  2. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #2
    Mar 5, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,342
    Likes Received: 476
    Trophy Points: 180
    PHP:
    State AttorneyMs Javelin Rugaihuruza had submitted that the  appellant was sufficiently identified by PW1 and PW2 at the time of the  incident.   
      
    She said the appellant was not a stranger to PW1 and  PW2who knew  him before the incidentstating that even the appellant had not denied  the fact.   
      
    ''We thinksince the appellant was well known to PW1 and PW2who  even called him by his name at the scene of crime and later at the  police station, and by the help of the light of the hurricane lamp,  under those circumstancesthere is no doubt that the appellant was  sufficiently identified at the scene of crime,'' the Justices of Appeal  concluded.   
      
    ''Having reached this conclusionwe thinkit is not necessary for  us to consider and determine the other five grounds of complaint against  the High Court judgement,'' the comment of the justices added.
    To put it mildly the reportage is preposterous. ...........what where the grounds of appeal and how did the appellants argued their case?
     
Loading...