Willson s/o Katanda v. R., Crim. App. 585-D-69, 1/10/69, Georges C. J.

 Willson s/o Katanda v. R., Crim. App. 585-D-69, 1/10/69, Georges C. J.

The appellant was convicted of robbary with violence c/ss 285 and 286 of the Penal Code, and assault causing actual bodily harm c/s 241 of the Penal Code. The case for the prosecution was that the appellant had managed to take two guns away from a party of policemen who were on patrol at Kunduchi. There had been an incident at Kunduchi earlier that day and a group of four policemen were patrolling the area that night. They came upon a group of men who were apparently gambling. As they approached the man scattered and the police gave chase. The appellant went off into ambush and pounced on the policemen with the machine gun she passed, struck him on the shoulder with a knife and in the ensuing struggle took away his machine gun. Having done this he ran away. He was chased and ran to a house and ran to a house. There he was confronted by the other armed policeman. The appellant made a stabbing motion at this policeman who jumped to avoid it. As he did so his gun fell and the appellant picked it up. He was now in possession of both guns. He remained leaning against the wall of the house with  the rifle hanging on his shoulder, the machine gun at his feet, and the knife in his hand, threatening to kill anyone who approached, Someone managed to pass behind him and take hold of the machine gun, whereupon the appellant ran away  with the rifle. Appellant later was arrested.

            Held: “I am satisfied that the conviction for robbery cannot stand. Robbery consists of stealing by the use of force. It is essential therefore to establish theft. Section 256 of the Penal Code…… defines exhaustively the various methods by which a fraudulent intention can be established. None of the intention set out in sub-section (2) can be said to have been established in this case. There was no evidence from which another inference could be drawn that the appellant intended to deprive the policemen permanently or their guns, or that he intended to use them as a pledge or security, or that he intended to part with the on a condition as to their return which he would have been unable to perform, or that he intended to deal with them n such a manner that they could not be returned in the condition in which they were at the time of taking or converting. The facts proved appear to me to establish no more than interference and an obstruction of the policemen in the performance of their duty. In the course of this obstruction one of the policemen was wounded. The conviction for assault causing actual bodily harm is therefore confirmed. The conviction for robbery is set aside and the sentenced quashed.”