Facts
The appellant was convicted of robbery with violence and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment by the district court of Musoma. His appeal to the High Court was unsuccessful
and, instead, the sentence was enhanced to thirty years. He appealed further to the Court of Appeal. His main ground was that the conviction was wrong because it was based on the evidence of the complainant, a child of tender years.
Held:
(i) As the offence was committed in broad daylight, and the appellant was well known to the complainant before the incident, and the complainant immediately mentioned the appellant to his father and later to the Police that he was the one who assaulted him and stole his cattle, it cannot be said that the complainant could have been mistaken in the identification of the appellant as his assailant and robber;
(i) As the offence was committed in broad daylight, and the appellant was well
known to the complainant before the incident, and the complainant immediately mentioned the appellant to his father and later to the Police that he was the one who assaulted him and stole his cattle, it cannot be said that the complaint could have been mistaken in the identification of the appellant as his assailant and robber.
(ii) A child's evidence may be corroborated by the defence of the accused and in this
case the appellant's admission that he was present at the scene of the crime on the material day and that it was the complainant's description of the appellant to the Police that led to his (the appellant's) arrest does, to some extent, corroborate the complainant's evidence
(iii) On the totality of the evidence the appellant was rightly convicted of robbery
with violence as charged and in view of the amendment of the Minimum Sentences Act 1972 by Act 10 of 1989 the High Court rightly enhanced the sentence to thirty years imprisonment.
Case Information
Appeal dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment