R. v. Joseph Sebastian Crim. App. 37-M-71; 20/8/71; El-Kindy, J.

 R. v. Joseph Sebastian Crim. App. 37-M-71; 20/8/71; El-Kindy, J.

The accused was convicted of housebreaking and three counts of stealing c/s 294(1) of the Penal Code, and sentenced on the first count to 2 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of corporal punishment. On the other three counts he was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. There was no order for compensation because the alleged stolen articles were recovered except a pair of shoes for which the trial court did not find it necessary to make such an order. The facts, which were not in dispute, were: the accused called at the house of the complainant at about 8.30 a. m. them left together leaving a number of articles of clothes on the line, later they separated. When the complainant returned at 12 noon, the clothes together with a transistor radio, etc. were missing. Later the accused was found with a radio which was identified as the property of the servant of the complainant’s neighbour. He was also found wearing a shirt and a pair of socks belonging to the neighbour and the complainant respectively. The rest of the missing items were recovered at the house of Zakaria (P. W. 6) who was living with accused’s sister. The defence was that accused bought the articles from Kaiza the complainant’s servant for Shs. 250/= and so the accused had no reason to suspect that Kaiza was selling stolen property.

            Held: (1) “I am satisfied that the learned trial magistrate was justified in holding that as she did ………. The accused had made no reference, not even a side hint, to the effect that he bought the same from Kaiza ……… I am satisfied that the explanation put forward by the accused was an afterthought.” (2) “The accused was found in recent possession stolen property, and in the circumstances, the trial magistrate was justified in holding that the accused was guilty of housebreaking and theft.” (3) “I am satisfied that Kaiz’s evidence left no reasonable doubt that the door of the house was closed when he left with the accused. There fore, ingress into the main house where the radio and other items were kept, could not be effected without pushing the door open, and this in law amounts to breaking. I see no reason to disturb the finding of the learned Magistrate.” (3) Appeal dismissed.