Facts
Augustino Mponda, the appellant was jointly charged with six others with burglary and stealing c/s 294 (1) and 265 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16, respectively. The trial court convicted him relying on the evidence of a co-accused which was not corroborated independently. His colleagues were acquitted. The offence committed was punishable under section 5 of the Minimum Sentences Act 1972. However, the trial magistrate committed the appellant to 4 years' imprisonment, far below the prescribed minimum sentence. In passing the sentence the magistrate was purportedly guided by section 172 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1985.
Held: (i) In convicting the appellant relying on the evidence of a co-accused without independent corroboration, the trial magistrate acted contrary to the provisions of section 33 of the Evidence Act 1967.
(ii) my interpretation of section 172 (2) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1985 is that the period an accused has stayed in a remand shall be considered together with other mitigating factors while sentencing.
(iii) in the case of a scheduled offence under the Minimum Sentences Act 1972, the period shall be taken into account while deciding what sentence is appropriate between the minimum and the maximum.
Case Information
Appeal allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment