R. v. Francis s/o Ngumbo, Crim. Rev. 47-D-67, 29/12/67, Biron J.
Accused was convicted of stealing from the person of another. [P.C. ss. 269(a), 265.] There was evidence that accused had snatched from the chairman of a co-operative society a bag containing Shs. 21,460/-; he was immediately apprehended. In an unsworn statement at the trial, accused said, “I know it was Co-operative money. I was annoyed at the way Abdallah (the Chairman) was underpaying the cashew nut sellers and so I snatched the money from him ….” In the appeal hearing, accused further stated that his mind was disturbed at the time of committing the crime and that he had acted on impulse without any intention of stealing or keeping the money. During the proceedings accused was transferred to a hospital for observation of his mental condition. The medical report stated n part, “He is a case of chronic schizophrenia. At the time of committing the offence he was aware of the nature and quality of the act. He is fit to stand trial and follow the proceedings in court ..No insight in to his inappropriate behavior. Not psychotic yet.”
Held: (1) Theft is defined as “(a) an intent permanently to deprive the general or special owner of the thing of it; …. (d) in the case of money an intent to use it at the will of the person who takes or converts it although he may intend afterwards to repay the amount to the owner.”
[P.C. s. 258.] (2) “In this particular case, in view of the accused ’s mental condition and the state he was in at the time, at the very lowest, there is a reasonable doubt as to whether in snatching the money he intended to steal it within the meaning of the definition of theft.” Conviction quashed.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.