Ramadhani Ally v. R. Crim. App. 328-D-69; 15/5/70; Bramble, J.

 

Ramadhani Ally v. R. Crim. App. 328-D-69; 15/5/70; Bramble, J.

The accused was convicted of Robbery c/s 285 and 286 of the Penal Code. The facts are that between 3^rd and 6^th April, 1969, the appellant stayed at the complainant’s house and was afterwards chased away. The evidence directly related to the charge was that, whilst the complainant was guarding his shamba from pigs and buffaloes during the night, the appellant jumped on him, seized his rifle and said that he would shoot him. The complainant ran to his house, closed the door and the appellant fire a shot at the wall of the house and demanded money; he ran away with the rifle when the neighbours came.

            Held: (1) “The charge of Robbery was in relation to the rifle. The Penal Code defines robbery as follows: “Any person who steals anything, and, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing it, uses or threatens to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained, is guilty of the felony termed “robbery”.” The learned trial magistrate did not direct his mind to the essential ingredients of the offence, that is, whether force or a threat of force was used to obtain or retain the thing stolen. The jumping on the complainant and seizing the rifle was not sufficient evidence of force used to obtain it. The statement may mean that he suddenly came up and snatched the rifle and does not necessarily mean that any assault was committed on the witness. The nature of the force used must be clearly proved. Whatever threat that was made after was a threat to obtain money form the complainant and not for the purpose of retaining the thing stolen. The Republic for the reasons did not support the conviction.” (2) “The trial magistrate found the facts as proved by the prosecution and even though, having regard to the relationship between the parties, this court may have come to a different conclusion there are no grounds for disturbing its findings ….. I will alter the conviction for Robbery to one of Staling contrary to section 265 of the Penal Code and vary the sentence to 12 months imprisonment. The order for corporal punishment is set aside”. (3) “The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above”.