Ibrahim Ramadhani v. R., Crim. App. 159-M-1969, 28/4/69, Seaton J.

 Ibrahim Ramadhani v. R., Crim. App. 159-M-1969, 28/4/69, Seaton J.

The appellant was convicted on four counts: one of burglary c/s 294 (1) of the Penal Code, two of theft c/s 265 of the Penal Code and the fourth one of unlawful possession of a firearm c/ss 13(1) and 31 of the Arms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 223. The court found that on the night of the 18^th November, 1968, the house of

the complainant was broken into. A quantity of his clothing was stolen and also a gun and ammunition, the property of P.W. 4 a guest of the complainant. On 30^th December, 1968, the appellant went to the house of his friend Hamisi with his gun and some other luggage and asked for a place to stay. Hamisi accommodated his but about a week later the accused came home one night drunk. He abused Hamisi and threatened him with a gun whereupon Hamisi reported the matter to the call leader. The appellant was arrested and the following day was taken to the police station together with the gun. The appellant had no permit or licence for possession of the gun hence his conviction on the 4^th count of unlawful possession of a firearm was abundantly justified. The gun was identified by the complainant’s guest by its make and number. The appellant swore in his defence that the gun was not in his possession but in Hamisi’s, who threatened him with it on the night, in question because he suspected him of seducing his wife.

Held: “The learned magistrate considered carefully the evidence in this case and disbelieved the appellant. He was of the view that as a gun cannot be a thing which can pass quickly, from one hand to another, it having been found in the appellant’s possession 43 days after the time it was stolen from the house of the complainant entitled him to infer that the appellant was guilty of the burglary and thefts as charged in the first three counts. Learned State Attornery in supporting the conviction on these counts, has referred to the case of Rex v. Bakari Abdalla (1949) 16 E. A. 84. In that case Court of Appeal noted that possession by an accused person of property proved to have been very recently stolen has been held not only to support a presumption of burglary or of breaking and entry but of murder as well, and if all the circumstances of a case point to no other reasonable conclusion the presumption can extend to any charge however penal. I am of the view that in the present case the learned magistrate could have found the appellant guilty of ether being the burglar and chief or the guilty receiver. He carefully considered these possibilities and I think, in view of the numerous formalities before a gun can be obtained or transferred from hand to hand, the learned magistrate was entitled to infer  from the possession 43 days after theft of the gun that its possessor to be the burglar and thief. The conviction was amply justified by the evidence.” (2) “Appeal dismissed. Sentence for burglary confirmed. Appellant Ordered to pay Shs. 272/- compensation to complainant for unrecovered clothing.”