Bubu Msemaovyo
JF-Expert Member
- May 9, 2007
- 3,833
- 2,790
Kwani ana mpango wa kukata rufaa?
Mfungwa aliyepata digrii akiwa gerezani, Haruna Pembe Gombela alifanya nini mpaka akafungwa?
- Thread starter Idimi
- Start date
Mpaka Kieleweke
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 27, 2007
- 4,132
- 1,571
Alifanya kosa gani? na je?hakuna haja ya kumwombea radhi?
Masanilo
Platinum Member
- Oct 2, 2007
- 22,286
- 4,493
Sheria na Mahakama za Tanzania huniacha hoi kweli...unaweza kukuta kosa alofanya Gombela si kubwa kama alofanya Ditopile, lakini ndo hivyo mvua 50 kwa Gombela na sitntoshangaa Dito kuachiwa huru kwa madai ushahidi wa kutosha haukutolewa na marehemu alifanya kosa la kutomheshimu kiongozi wa kitaifa....Dito unaachiwa huru. Wakati mwingine mimi huwa naamua kufagilia mob justice a.k.a sheria mkononi kwa wananchi wenye hasira.
Bubu Msemaovyo
JF-Expert Member
- May 9, 2007
- 3,833
- 2,790
Leo nilipokuwa naelekea ofisini nilibahatika kumuuliza njagu mmoja kuhusu nini kilimpeleka huyu Bwana gerezani, yule afande akanijibu kwamba yule mfungwa alikutwa na silaha za hatari sana na hicho ndicho kilicho mpeleka huko. Hata hivyo ilionekana ni swala zito sana kwani hata yeye afande alijiumauma kwa kuogopa mimi ninayeongea naye ni nani.
Bongolander
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 10, 2007
- 5,067
- 2,197
Sheria ya Tanzania ni kweli inashangaza kwa sababu utekelezaji wake unaupendeleo. Kutokana na hali iliyopo sasa Tanzania Equal rights and justice will never happen in Tanzania, labda Mungu afe au mungu apende. Ukiuliza Tanzania mhalifu ni nani, wa kwanza atakuwa Kibaka anayeiba kutokana na maisha magumu, lakini wale wanaoiba mabilioni ndio wanaheshimiwa na kuitwa mheshimiwa au mzee, na hao ndio wana ulinzi hata wa Ultimate security. Hii ni Tanzania yetu, nchi yenye furaha.
Bowbow
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 20, 2007
- 541
- 31
Je ni kweli tumeshindwa kujua makosa aliyohukumiwa nayo huyu mzee, kama ni silaha za hatari ni zipi? Alizipata wapi?
Kama watoto wake wote wamesoma Academy kama mwanaJF moja alivyosema Je kwa nini tusiamini serikali ndio iliwasomeshea watoto wake yeye aendelee kufanya kazi yake huko gerezani?
Kama watoto wake wote wamesoma Academy kama mwanaJF moja alivyosema Je kwa nini tusiamini serikali ndio iliwasomeshea watoto wake yeye aendelee kufanya kazi yake huko gerezani?
FairPlayer
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 27, 2006
- 4,145
- 716
Ngoja nilifuatilie hii issue.
Mnhenwa Ndege
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 5, 2007
- 242
- 19
sasa hapa i fail to understand huyu mtu amekaa jela for how many years is it 9 or 16 but definately not 26 years maana Gombela has a daughter Leila Gombela aged 23 and i dont thing that our Tanzanian prisoners enjoy conjugal rights. and by the way am very curious to know what put this man behind bars
Poor Leila, never enjoyed the love from your dady!
Mshua's
JF-Expert Member
- May 22, 2013
- 801
- 546
Baada ya kuupata huu uzi nimeingiwa na shauku ya kutaka kujua je, huyu jamaa alishaachiwa kutoka jela? Alifungwa kwa kosa gani? Alisha fariki au maisha yake yakoje huko uraiani baada ya kutoka jela?
Mods naomba uzi huu upelekwe jukwaa la intellijensia inawezekana watu wanauelewa na hili swala!
Mods naomba uzi huu upelekwe jukwaa la intellijensia inawezekana watu wanauelewa na hili swala!
May be this can help.
http://www.judiciary.go.tz:8081/hel...tion/GombelaVsRepublic 44 OF 2006 (JUDG.).pdf
http://www.judiciary.go.tz:8081/hel...tion/GombelaVsRepublic 44 OF 2006 (JUDG.).pdf
Lutala
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 17, 2010
- 848
- 103
KOSA LAKE LIPO HAPA:
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM
(CORAM: MUNUO, J.A., BWANA, J.A. And MJASIRI, J.A.)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2006
EX. E.6937 D/C HARUNA PEMBE GOMBELA....................... ..............APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE REPUBLIC...................... .............................. ..........................RESP ONDENT
(Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) (Oriyo, J.)
dated the 31st day of October, 2005 in HC. Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1992
------------
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
20 May & 9 June, 2011
MUNUO, J.A.:
The appellant, Ex-B.6937 DC Haruna Pembe Gombela was in Ilala District Court Criminal Case No. 1426 of 1990 jointly with others who are
not parties to this appeal, convicted of robbery with violence and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Aggrieved by the sentence, the Director of Public Prosecution challenged the same in Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1992 resulting in the sentence of 20 years being enhanced to 30 years, the scheduled statutory minimum sentence for armed robbery. The appellant had meanwhile lodged Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1992 which through oversight was not consolidated with Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1992 as ordered by the High Court. Later, Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1992 was struck out to enable the present appellant's appeal to be determined in Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1992, though unsuccessfully. Thereafter, the appellant lodged this appeal to challenge the conviction and sentence.
On the 27th August, 1990 the complainant, P.W.1 Shabani Alli had parked his taxi Registration No. TZA 9743 at Mwembechai, Dar es Salaam. At about 8.10 p.m 3 bandits hired the material taxi to Sinza. At Sinza the bandits ordered the taxi driver to take them to Ubungo and to Mabibo. When they reached Mabibo, the bandits threatened PW1 with a pistol and forced him to sit between the two bandits at the rear seat. The bandits then drove to Mikocheni where they dropped P.W.1 from the taxi,abandoning him there. P.W.1 and reported the matter at Kijitonyama police station. The following day, the police recovered a gear box, engine and tyres suspected to have been dismantled from the stolen taxi. P.W.1 identified the tyres by silver marks he had placed thereon. The present appellant was implicated by the 2nd accused who was acquitted.
The appellant filed eight grounds of appeal complaining that he was wrongly convicted on the statement of his co-accused and that the trial court failed to conduct a preliminary hearing under the provisions of section 192 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 R.E. 2002. He further challenged the identification evidence adduced at the trial saying the complainant did not give the descriptions of the bandits so the visual identification at night was unfavourable and uncertain to sustain a conviction considering that he was implicated by a co-accused who was himself acquitted by the trial court.
Ms Angela Lushagara, learned State Attorney, represented the Republic. She supported the appeal on the ground that the visual identification evidence gave no description of the attire, and, or apparel of the bandits so the complainant might not have identified the bandits during the night. She, furthermore, faulted the courts below for grounding the conviction of the appellant on the caution statements of DW3 and DW4 who were acquitted. Hence the learned State Attorney urged the Court to quash the conviction and set aside the sentence thereby allowing the appeal. The issue in this appeal is whether the identification of the appellant was watertight.
The learned judge upheld the conviction of the appellant on the ground that the complainant identified the appellant. The learned judge
stated, inter-alia:
"...Three independent testimonies visually identified the appellant, the 3rd accused who stole the car from the complainant; 4th accused who bought the stolen taxi's engine and other spares. I find that this is the type of evidence the Court of Appeal had in mind in requiring the evidence of visual identification must be watertight before a court can convict on it. I am satisfied that the visual identification of the appellant was watertight, and the trial court cannot be faulted for convicting the appellant on the strength of the evidence tendered..."
In this case, the complainant was the sole eye witness. Three bandits pretended to be innocent passengers in need of hiring P.W.1's taxi to Sinza, Ubungo and Mabibo Peninsular only to turn out to be armed robbers who threatened P.W.1 with a pistol and seized the taxi from him after throwing him out of the cab at Mikocheni in Kinondoni District. The Republic declined to support the conviction on the ground that the identification evidence was weak in that P.W.1 gave no description, names or attires of the bandits who robbed him. Even the identification register of the police parade was not tendered at the trial to prove whether or not the taxi driver identified the appellant. The learned State Attorney faulted the trial court for convicting the appellant on the caution statement of the 3rd accused who was acquitted. On the evidence of a co-accused; section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1967 Cap. 6 R.E. 2002 states, inter-alia:
"33. (1) When two or more persons are being tried jointly for the same offence or for different offences out of the same transaction, and a confession of the offence or offences charged made by one of those persons effecting himself and some other of those persons is proved, the court may take that confession into consideration against that other person.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a conviction of an accused person shall not be based solely on a confession by a co-accused.
(3) In this section "offence" includes the statement of, or attempt to commit the offence charged, and other offences which are minor and cognate to the offence charged, which are disclosed in the confession and admitted by the accused..."
It appears to us that the appellant was wrongly convicted on the incriminating caution statement of the 3rd accused who was acquitted by the trial court. There is no sufficient evidence to support the conviction of the appellant. Moreover, under the provisions of section 33 (2) of the Evidence Act cited supra, the conviction of the appellant cannot stand because the incriminating statement of accused No. 3 who was acquitted requires independent corroborating evidence as stipulated under the provisions of the said section 33(2) of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E. 2002. In view of the above, the Republic rightly supported the appeal. we have no justification to differ with the Republic. We are satisfied that the identification of the appellant was not watertight. Hence we accordingly quash the conviction and set aside the sentence. The appellant to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not detained for other lawful cause. The appeal is hereby allowed.
DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 1st day of June, 2011.
E. N. Munuo
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
S. A. Massati
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
K. K. Oriyo
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
M. A. MALEWO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM
(CORAM: MUNUO, J.A., BWANA, J.A. And MJASIRI, J.A.)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2006
EX. E.6937 D/C HARUNA PEMBE GOMBELA....................... ..............APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE REPUBLIC...................... .............................. ..........................RESP ONDENT
(Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) (Oriyo, J.)
dated the 31st day of October, 2005 in HC. Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1992
------------
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
20 May & 9 June, 2011
MUNUO, J.A.:
The appellant, Ex-B.6937 DC Haruna Pembe Gombela was in Ilala District Court Criminal Case No. 1426 of 1990 jointly with others who are
not parties to this appeal, convicted of robbery with violence and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Aggrieved by the sentence, the Director of Public Prosecution challenged the same in Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1992 resulting in the sentence of 20 years being enhanced to 30 years, the scheduled statutory minimum sentence for armed robbery. The appellant had meanwhile lodged Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1992 which through oversight was not consolidated with Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1992 as ordered by the High Court. Later, Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1992 was struck out to enable the present appellant's appeal to be determined in Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1992, though unsuccessfully. Thereafter, the appellant lodged this appeal to challenge the conviction and sentence.
On the 27th August, 1990 the complainant, P.W.1 Shabani Alli had parked his taxi Registration No. TZA 9743 at Mwembechai, Dar es Salaam. At about 8.10 p.m 3 bandits hired the material taxi to Sinza. At Sinza the bandits ordered the taxi driver to take them to Ubungo and to Mabibo. When they reached Mabibo, the bandits threatened PW1 with a pistol and forced him to sit between the two bandits at the rear seat. The bandits then drove to Mikocheni where they dropped P.W.1 from the taxi,abandoning him there. P.W.1 and reported the matter at Kijitonyama police station. The following day, the police recovered a gear box, engine and tyres suspected to have been dismantled from the stolen taxi. P.W.1 identified the tyres by silver marks he had placed thereon. The present appellant was implicated by the 2nd accused who was acquitted.
The appellant filed eight grounds of appeal complaining that he was wrongly convicted on the statement of his co-accused and that the trial court failed to conduct a preliminary hearing under the provisions of section 192 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 R.E. 2002. He further challenged the identification evidence adduced at the trial saying the complainant did not give the descriptions of the bandits so the visual identification at night was unfavourable and uncertain to sustain a conviction considering that he was implicated by a co-accused who was himself acquitted by the trial court.
Ms Angela Lushagara, learned State Attorney, represented the Republic. She supported the appeal on the ground that the visual identification evidence gave no description of the attire, and, or apparel of the bandits so the complainant might not have identified the bandits during the night. She, furthermore, faulted the courts below for grounding the conviction of the appellant on the caution statements of DW3 and DW4 who were acquitted. Hence the learned State Attorney urged the Court to quash the conviction and set aside the sentence thereby allowing the appeal. The issue in this appeal is whether the identification of the appellant was watertight.
The learned judge upheld the conviction of the appellant on the ground that the complainant identified the appellant. The learned judge
stated, inter-alia:
"...Three independent testimonies visually identified the appellant, the 3rd accused who stole the car from the complainant; 4th accused who bought the stolen taxi's engine and other spares. I find that this is the type of evidence the Court of Appeal had in mind in requiring the evidence of visual identification must be watertight before a court can convict on it. I am satisfied that the visual identification of the appellant was watertight, and the trial court cannot be faulted for convicting the appellant on the strength of the evidence tendered..."
In this case, the complainant was the sole eye witness. Three bandits pretended to be innocent passengers in need of hiring P.W.1's taxi to Sinza, Ubungo and Mabibo Peninsular only to turn out to be armed robbers who threatened P.W.1 with a pistol and seized the taxi from him after throwing him out of the cab at Mikocheni in Kinondoni District. The Republic declined to support the conviction on the ground that the identification evidence was weak in that P.W.1 gave no description, names or attires of the bandits who robbed him. Even the identification register of the police parade was not tendered at the trial to prove whether or not the taxi driver identified the appellant. The learned State Attorney faulted the trial court for convicting the appellant on the caution statement of the 3rd accused who was acquitted. On the evidence of a co-accused; section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1967 Cap. 6 R.E. 2002 states, inter-alia:
"33. (1) When two or more persons are being tried jointly for the same offence or for different offences out of the same transaction, and a confession of the offence or offences charged made by one of those persons effecting himself and some other of those persons is proved, the court may take that confession into consideration against that other person.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a conviction of an accused person shall not be based solely on a confession by a co-accused.
(3) In this section "offence" includes the statement of, or attempt to commit the offence charged, and other offences which are minor and cognate to the offence charged, which are disclosed in the confession and admitted by the accused..."
It appears to us that the appellant was wrongly convicted on the incriminating caution statement of the 3rd accused who was acquitted by the trial court. There is no sufficient evidence to support the conviction of the appellant. Moreover, under the provisions of section 33 (2) of the Evidence Act cited supra, the conviction of the appellant cannot stand because the incriminating statement of accused No. 3 who was acquitted requires independent corroborating evidence as stipulated under the provisions of the said section 33(2) of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E. 2002. In view of the above, the Republic rightly supported the appeal. we have no justification to differ with the Republic. We are satisfied that the identification of the appellant was not watertight. Hence we accordingly quash the conviction and set aside the sentence. The appellant to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not detained for other lawful cause. The appeal is hereby allowed.
DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 1st day of June, 2011.
E. N. Munuo
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
S. A. Massati
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
K. K. Oriyo
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
M. A. MALEWO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL
Similar Discussions
-
Dar: Mtoza Ushuru wa Stendi ahukumiwa kwa kuomba Rushwa ya Tsh. 150,000- Started by Miss Zomboko
- Replies: 4
-
Aliyeachiwa kwa msamaha wa Rais ahukumiwa miaka 30 jela
- Started by Mjanja M1
- Replies: 40
-
Mtalaka aliyeghushi umiliki wa ghorofa arejeshwa gerezani- Started by BARD AI
- Replies: 4
-
Ruvuma: Katibu wa kikundi cha Walemavu Liparamba kilichopo Nyasa ahukumiwa kwa Ubadhilifu wa Fedha za Walemavu
- Started by Miss Zomboko
- Replies: 9
-
Wakili Msando na mkewe wachemka mahakamani, waamuriwa kulipa fidia ya milioni 175- Started by Replica
- Replies: 28