The Appellant was sentenced to thirty (30) years’
imprisonment for the offence of armed robbery His appeal to the High Court
against conviction and sentence was unsuccessful, hence this second appeal. It
was alleged that PW1 was travelling on a slow motion on his bicycle. PW1 saw
the Appellant ahead of him, coming from the opposite direction. The Appellant
hit PW1 on his shoulder with a piece of iron bar and inflicted a cut on PW1’s
left hand with a panga. The Appellant was telling PW1 to give him the
money all the time. PW1 gave the accused Tshs. 5,000/=. PW1 knew the accused
and his parents. The accused disappeared with the bicycle in the bush. PW1
raised the alarm and people came. PW2, PW3 and PW5 were among the first persons
who assembled at the scene of crime in response to PW1’s alarm. They told the
trial court that PW1 named the Appellant a sole perpetrator of the robbery. The
trial court was further told that a few hours after the robbery incident, the
Appellant went to the house of PW4, to whom he confessed having inflicted cut
wounds on PW1 in order to steal the latter’s money. This evidence was not
challenged during cross examination. PW6 obtained and recorded the Appellant’s
cautioned statement (Exh. P3) in which he confessed to have hacked PW1 by using
a panga in order to steal his money. On this, the first appellate court
is being faulted for having affirmed the Appellant’s conviction basing on the
cautioned statement (Exh. P3) obtained and recorded by PW6 without informing
the Appellant his rights prescribed under section 53(c) (i) and (iii) of the
Criminal Procedure Act [Cap 20 R.E. 2002]. The Appellant further argues that he
was not properly identified by the victim of the robbery.