Sanga v. R. Crim. App. 508-D-71; 14/2/72; Biron, J

 

Sanga v. R. Crim. App. 508-D-71; 14/2/72; Biron, J

The appellant was one of three men who were charged with storebreaking and stealing but were convicted of receiving and were each sentenced to imprisonment for twelve months. It was established that there were stolen from depot of the Tanzania/Zambia Road Services Limited four large tyres. A considerable number of witnesses gave evidence so the effect that some of these stolen tyres were in the possession of one or other accused within days of their having been stolen In addition, a police officer gave evidence to the effect that not far from the depot from which the tyres had been stolen, there were marks of tyres having been rolled along the road and there was found nearby a right-footed sandal which corresponded to a sandal worn by the appellant on his left foot, whilst he wore a different type on his right foot. The appellant’s explanation for this was that he had borrowed the sandal he was wearing on his left foot from one of his co-accused, having left his own to be repaired by the same accused, which incidentally, was denied by the said accused. On appeal to the High Court.

            Held: (1) “Not only is the conviction fully supported and justified by the evidence, but I would add that the evidence would even support a conviction of the three accused having themselves stolen the tyres as they were originally charged.” (2) “As noted, all three accused were charged with storebreaking and stealing, but were convicted of receiving. If the tyres were in fact stolen from a store which had been broken into, the conviction for receiving would also, like the store breaking and stealing, be a scheduled offence under the Minimum Sentences Act, 1963, and would have attracted at lowest the prescribed minimum sentence of imprisonment for two years and twenty-four strokes corporal punishment. However the so-called store was not really a store at all – (See s. 296(1) of the Penal Code). The so-called store in this case would appear to be nothing more than a wired enclosure, apparently something like a wire-cage, which would not constitute a store within the meaning of the subsection above set out.”(3) “I am satisfied and so certify that this appeal has been lodged without any sufficient ground of complaint, except perhaps that the sentence errs on the lenient side, but the appellant is not complaining of that. The appeal is accordingly summarily rejected.”