TZW
Justices Mbarouk Mbarouk, Rehema Mkuye and Jacobs Mwambegele reached into the decision after allowing the appeal that Paul, alias Kadala, had lodged to challenge the findings of a District Court and High Court over his trial.
They ruled that the two charges the appellant was convicted of by the trial court and later confirmed by the High Court were not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases.
The justices noted variances of the evidence tendered and the charges against the appellant. “We are of the view that the variance in the amounts of money stolen in the charge sheet and the evidence adduced is serious.
Under such circumstances, an amendment of the charge was unavoidable to enable the appellant understand the nature of offences charged and prepare his defence,” they said.
Otherwise, according to the justices, the variance between the charge sheet and the contradicting evidence from the prosecution witnesses sufficiently created doubt on the appellant’s conviction.
“In fine, we accordingly allow the appeal, quash the conviction against the appellant, set aside the sentence imposed on him and order for his immediate release from prison unless held for some other lawful reasons,” they declared.
The charge sheet in the first court alleged the appellant stole 12m/- worth of pesticides, property of his employer, BioSustain Tanzania Limited Office at Singida region between January and May 2013 when he was entrusted as the company agent.
In the second count, the appellant was accused of stealing 87m/- property of his employer, which was entrusted to him as agent for the purpose of buying cotton but instead he used the money for his own use. When deliberating their judgment, the justices noted different figures to support the charges.
With the first count, the witness had testified that the appellant was given 13,068,000/- for farm inputs. After paying some money he remained with a debt of 12,668,000/- which were farm inputs for Meatu District.
Besides, the justices noted, there was an exhibit which showed different amounts the appellant was indebted as 12.4m/-, as one item of the total amount of 13,680,000/-, which the company said the appellant was indebted.
“As it is, one cannot tell as to which amount the exhibit was intended to prove that the appellant was indebted or had stolen between the amounts shown in the exhibit and the one shown in the charge sheet,” they said.
Likewise for the second count, one witness testified that the appellant owed a total of 99,629,881,000/-, but another witness told the court that the appellant was indebted to the company 99,629,000/-. Such amounts, the justices said, were different from the amount claimed in the charge sheet totaling 99m/-.