Facts
The respondent was charged with stealing from her husband. The Primary Court convicted her, awarded a punishment of conditional discharge and ordered her to pay half of the stolen money to her husband i.e. Shs. H 15,000/=. The wife who after the theft began to live in separation appealed to the District Court protesting her innocence. The District Court quashed the conviction and sentence of the Primary Court on the ground that the respondent I had a defence of "honest claim of right".The second appellate court considered whether or not the respondent committed theft. The court also considered what constitutes a condition in a conditional discharge.
Held: (i) Under section 264 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16, a husband may be guilty of stealing from his wife or a wife from her husband.
(ii) since the trial court was unanimous that the respondent had taken her husband's money and the District Court endorsed that view, the connection was inevitable.
(iii) under section 258 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16, anyone who takes away something under an honest C claim of right is not guilty of the offence of theft. In the case at hand, the respondent had at no time claimed that she had taken the Shs. 30,000/= under an honest claim of right.
(iv) under Section 4(i) of the Primary Court's Criminal Procedure Code the condition for a conditional discharge ought to be that "during a period not exceeding one year the accused shall appear and receive sentence when called upon and in the meantime he or she shall keep the peace and be of good behavour". It was wrong for the trial court to order that the condition for discharge was that the accused pay her husband half of the stolen money.
Case Information
Order accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment