Lucas Mbanda v. R., Crim. App. 552-M-71; 16/9/72.

Lucas Mbanda v. R., Crim. App. 552-M-71; 16/9/72.

            JONATHAN, AG. J. – The appellant was convicted of housebreaking and stealing contrary to sections 294(1) and 265 of the Penal Code and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months, respectively, being ordered also to receive 24 strokes.

            The facts of the case were simple. It is undisputed that on the morning of the 20^th March, 1971 the house of the complainant was broken into while he was at work and bed sheets and clothes stolen there from to the value of approximately Shs. 2,000/=. It is undisputed also that on the 27th July, 1971

The complainant saw the appellant wearing what appeared as some of his stolen clothes. He followed him stealthily and thereby came to know where he was staying in the township. A couple of days later he took P.W.3 a police officer to such place. That transpired to be the house of P.W.2 with whom the appellant was staying. In that house they found one bed-sheet, 2 trousers, 3 shirts, a neck tie and a jacket all of which the complainant recognised as forming part of his stolen things. However, the appellant contended the things were his and he duly produced receipts. But these did not satisfy the police officer as they related to completely different items [The court reviewed the evidence as to ownership of the goods and continued]. On the evidence before it, the trial court was entitled to reject (appellant’s) claim and to fid that the clothes belonged to the complainant and formed part of the property stolen following the housebreaking incident.

            According to P.W. 2, and it is not disputed, the appellant had those things when he moved to stay with him on the 30^th March, 1971, what is ten days after the offences were committed. In view of this and having regard to the fact that the things comprised most of the complainant’s stolen property, I am satisfied the doctrine of recent possession was properly applied so as to find the appellant the perpetrator of the offence charged. Accordingly, the appeal against the convictions has no merit. [Sentence upheld}.