Charles Mwewa and Anor v People (Appeal Nos 5 & 6 of 1991) [1991] ZMSC 81 (6 February 1991)

.• - ,, •. • I . • .. :-i-~- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Crlmlnal Jurisdiction) ·, Appeal Nos 5 & ·,6 · of 1991 I j, CHARLES MWEWA . Joan Ns!lkulula and at or . immediately before or after the time of ste~ling did use or threaten to use violence to the s·a1c1 Joan Nsakulula. , , .,,.l , , , , • " The facts of the case were that .the complainant . Joan.' Nsakulula~ ' who· w~S \' employed at Chipuluka depot in Mku~hi as a ~ales· 1a~y. 1 \ad; ·at the ~nd° of. · the.day on,the_ 12th of Febr~ary. 1987~ the -~um .~·l i~1-~a;;.~ash ~··Jlnd :.· ' ' · . cheques making the total of .the amount referred, i~• t~~J~,~~~ge ·_and she went to bed in a t.ent ~ithin .the depot. She was qwakened by .two persons who . came in the tent with a torch and she saw that one· of .them had a· stlck and a gun. Although they were ·~aring: sacks she was abl~ _:{6)see them clearly and she h~ard them demand money from her. She gav~tn~~ the plastic bag containing ·the takings for the day, which included the, cash and .the _ · cheques. The.witness was able to recognise the assaillants as people she . . · 1 .t .'· .·.· .· ~ •. ' . . • . ' .. , . • • - . J was tc1ken .'. '• ... ' ' . , • I ' , • ; ~ f . . . .... . . .. . :.: . · ... ' .. .. .. .. . . • • ... • l • ,I ' I ... . •' . ; , .. . . '• . I • . • • • • ' ' • • • • ... , • • • • • • • . • !. • • • • •• . . .• • • • • ' .. ., • . . -. ' • •' ,• • . ' - . . .; 4' • . . : : . . · •. • ,; .. . . • '."•: , I . • . • ! • . . :. ' . . ' . . ~- J2 - . . : '.. ... . '. . . . . . .. \ . . _;.... . .. ··: ,~:~. PW2 gave evidence that on the day ln quest,o~ he<~Js at th~ depot in ~ his tent ·when he he~rd voices outsi.de. Two men a$ked . him for matcJ)es to · .. light their cigarettes and he ~old them he had oQne.' H~ then. Sil\:' ·two of :,: them 11ft off the entrance to the tent belonging: to P\,(1-. ·:. Hf.!. ·$·ays: he was :.~· . · '. .. >·:( able· to se~ both Intruders clear,y because th.et.e .:was··:~~nlight • .- . He hit one of the intruders. He ldenti r"ied . one . of. 0'theh1 .as "the second : · .. :·_ appellant and the second appellant fell do~~ • . · Hq~~~~-~-.. th:at>appelhnt. ··\.· .. then took hold of the stick, beatif'!g the ·witness,· ·~rifls~ the· first: ·_ .. · !.:/_ . .. ·· .... appellant was saying he 'Ji(ould._·shoot him. The wt.~nes~ f~n·' ~w.ay,· ~nd >· . -.::i · . . ·. _ _.:.~-·· when he came back. he discovered thlt his s'heets •. b·ho.ket~ and -two pal~s- of 'trousers wer.e mi~sing •. He ·recognls~d ihe-\h:~et/-1~ ·. CQUrt·~-·. ·:c(. although they had no marks -on them. as beio~ging .t:o::_hl~.:.--~~,lch sheets ··. ·.·_-:: had according to the eviden_ce been found ln ttie: ~os-~es~:too·. of -th{. · ·: •~ .· __ ·: . ' . first appellant. He satd ·'tt)at he later saw th~: ~w9 men again at .the ·. ~-. :"'-.' · . -· .::_ .. .. _ _.\(.(·~-~1.·-\'.-. .': ... ··. -: .. :, .. · .. _·_;.i;;·· .. · depot ang at the police station. •, • , •:•r •r~: ,J·••:: •.; ., .... • \ •..,•• '•.-: .~\ PW3~ tne· pol1c~· investlgat19n ··officer, .s.ai'd th'at''q'~ t'ilfonnation:: _; ::f·. · · recieved he a~prehended both• appell~nts. . H~ s~id. that>both -of . t ·h~ . .' · .. · · _: · __ :_'. 'led him t~ a place .in the bush f.~r ·half a kll~et.re.:whe~·".h~i. re-~~v·~~d' <. some' t~~n sacks and a. broken atrgun a~d s~me -pl·a·~tic ·\;"ap~~·;.: '•i,( Ills .· .,'._',./ ... . . . ·.. - evidence he said that he administered .a warn and c·aut1on to .both "tne ... :_.,,- appellant~. that is to say he said, _uWhatever 'you· say' .will; b~. in .'. · ·:> ·-: , :.· . \ evidence at your tr.d-1 ". He said ,,t~r. that 'th.e·'.f.f~s1; :.appel-1.~ht _ _'h.af .·,. : . :. said that they had used sacks to disguise them in ihe::·~obbe'r'i.· an(toat· . •._ · ·the ·second appellant had sai'd that the borrowed an airgun fr9m · Enqck·· .. · .. _.: I · Chinda of Kansuka Village • . He said that he had them·:taken bQth the ·. · · · .. . appe 11 ants . to Kansuka V 111 age . where Mr. Chi nd;._ l t{ttie1/ :~~es-~n·c~-h:ad' .·· . '• .. . confinned that he had lent .his alr~u~ ·to the .secq_n~_- ap~~ri;nt·. ·~.'J:ie . -~ :.· ·._._ : . said that on their way back to the ,police stat1on··· thi•f:.1rst··appellant . . ' . . _ showed him· a place off the main. r:-oad where to '.find t~e· ii:Jen_Uty :card . . . . .. referred ~o- by the complaln~nt as. havi'ng ·beer:i. stolen ,'.frpfll . her at the .- .. -> l~ fs apparent that .. th1s·:.car9 was· ir_1_- a f.~nn:) ,-:,. time the money was taken~ of a gate pass. This witness went' ~n ·to say.·-that ·th~ first ~ppell~-~-i --. .... 'showed him a wooden stj.ck which he had thrown .·behlnd.-the -d~pot. ;~nd,. ' _; ·. _. · •,. whilst the two appe_llants ~ere in the· Land Rover tageth~r '.wlt.h six other. suspects, . h~ ~a.i led_ PW' s 1 and 2 -t~ s~el·ir;; they -c~uld 1~entlfy;; .-~_:\\ , any one in the1,hai. V . Rover and' both prosecution witnesses:· 1dent1fied \ r .\ ~ ~\ I the two appellants ·as having been the robbers~ ~Subseque~tly- the " . .. .. . witness recovered some proper_ty from the possession- of.:the· fi_rst appellant. Among the property were s~me bed sheets iqent~fied by P. W2 . · as having ·been stoJen from hlm on the night of tlie rob~~ry .• ,' .,· ,· .· · .' . · . . ·.: • .. .... ,.., .. ,,.._ . . .:• . . ·. ~ . . ., . . ··. ......... . ; .. . .. . . . . .. . , .. \• . :";.' . ·... . . . . . . .· . •· . . . . ·. . . ,. . . -· , . ·, . . - , !• 0 ,<, \o • • , • "r . . . . ;il•• . ' . . . . . . .1 :· ' • • <> I , , -~._. ' ~ ' - . ;.- .. >, / • • • ' • , •• • • • • . •♦ . , II- ~ • • • I + o • 1 • . , \ ~ o . • • ', ' ' , • • • \ • • 1 • • 0 : I I • • • • I ' , ' I ' I . ;... . I . ' , ' · _) . ·, .. , .. i' . '• I The first appellant put in written arg~ments of a.ppeal whi'ch r .. J3 . - •. .. , ' · I r f • • , j O ' o • • • • • • • o • > ' ~ .. r ' r, . . . . . .' • . • • . ·· •' I ' • • • . .• . . •· ... ,: ·.··.•·,:•·• . ' ..... . . , · : .,_d,~ - . . •,It.:•~ : /,_ ... _ ... .:;!• i~• ~ • •·~:•;:-'~;:J .. ~~ . . . we_re very lengthy. We do not intend to deal tn "detail with eve·ry point raised by the appellant except for. the argument that the identification by the first t~o prosecut10f1A'itnesses_ left a lo.t to. In tllis connection we accept the evidence of the police be desired. - ~ -:,,'yo witness was that there were two occasions when the identifying .. 111itr:,essest .· saw the appellants once at the_ depot and once at the .police station.: It is apparent that the identification at· the depot .took· pface when the appellants were in a Land Roveir with a . numb~r· ·of other suspec:ts, and this took place befo~e the 1de1nti ficatibri at the( iiol lce· stati.on~ The first appellant argued, tha< he ~nd his -~o'~appellan_t were the · only, : ~~ ones · who were handcuffed~ t~us making the iden,t~ f1cat1on · unfair~- , ': ,· .~ ~.-·. ·:; :-1•·, ~ , ,, He agree that the c..ircumstances. in thi"s case tendered the. · : identification unsatisfactory and it cannot! be· accepted unless there can be :found in the evidence somet~-ing mor~ to.-support·Ji~ . : .. ·~1/· •) ·+• In connection-with what could -be · something· more·t ~so fat. as ·the ? . first appellant, is ccinc~rned, we wi 11 · ignore trie. ftndi-119 ~(·the- .sacks·. i and the sticks and whatever was said after- the admi~~ion ·of what we consider. to be an ·1nadequ~te warn dnd. cautio·n~ ·_:in 't .h{s· lat~er ~espect · we would say· that a witness who is going to cautio,-i, a $USpt!ct ;b.~ore .,:-_ · .. asking questions o·f him .should put to ·him ·the; f. L1-1r'.·wa·rn and cauU0n ·. ·: ·:;.~}1;t: whifh is the one ·u~ually \:ontained · in. ~ ~~itf~_r(~\i~t~.fjPt::;·i~-j~(s-_ case,. as there was. no fu 11 caution we 1 ntend .-to.: 'ignore ; ~batever was --~ ,~;;i sa id by the appeli~nts. · However·, ·evidence of.;:~~iit~t~~'.~~pp~-~i·an1~~.'•did/; / In the context· of :thif.'cas~? trne most ·1mport~nt : is entirely admissiple~ evidence found as, a result of ~n indi~a~-io~. ~/.t~e~~tr;;,~~ .. --~appei~a~~ .--:: ·:.' ·_:' was tile gate pass belonging to PW1. ·, Io ·our ' vtew .. th-is:<f.u.lly· .corrobor4ted:. •-= . what_ we· ~ave, deeme~ t[?- ~e unsatisfactory ,i~en~i.fY,'~1'19.:·~t~~~n~~ an~ : -:;.: · cured·. any defects th~re may have- been._ in .su.c_h · ~Y-~-~~~~,e~~;·_/. Jn· 'the_._sam~." .. '. , . way, ·SO far as the second appeilant is c~m.c~r~e~./ ~eYtind'·. ~ha~-~--- < ..... _:.: regardl~ss of what was said by· th_~, seconq app_e1.~~-~~tA~\ },~e.}i_m~ -~-f '·:: _·. "the finding· of the airgun 1 t~e statemeQt: m~~e.:tly''tb~f o\'(ner,, Of: t~e~ .. :· ::·./ ~ "\~~. ]°• :/•zr1,•:-..:'it, ~h-'1, ... rr.• •r:•·1 . . : I :• •• \•".,• ,• • ' \ •rl':, atrgun in the presence of the·.second :appellunt ·wasi evi-~e.nc~ · ulJkil)g·:_ .·: ~. that appellant with the airgun- which w~s .us·ed 1~ -t~e:-rob~ery •.. Again . :· ~ • any defects in the .i~entification evidence Wftre ''.~ed:•by· th.is· additto·nal'f· : ,-- evidence linking the second apl)'ellant to the .robb-~r.y~<, ·. •.•:· '··.•· . .'>? .,_, ··;, · ~ ;,~- ... . · ' .::::· '/.<· '..:·~~---- . ~ . '· . .- . : :::1 .; ... •. '. ·-•~~- ·.: -~ '. ;\ ·. . . ' .. ~ .... . ,, . ._. -,. ,,:••! • • ..... ''11,," .:l : .: l :. • For the reasons which · we .have glven, :t:~-e a~peafs':against ' ... '·:.·. -··,.:,' :' "... ·::·,.., .. _ .. ··:~,;/~~:"~~-;,{," ... :: conviction are dismissed. .· , . ..... :,.:l•.•.:i· · .. · •r,;r t•, .. ,• '1~ ·_- .·' ·. ;:., ' ;J., ;.', , • .. ' , · ' ·. . . ~ _ .. , , . • . , . • ·" • : 'I,.,.. \ ·, ' • . . •• • .. •. f I' .~ . • • ,,'1l • '. • • ~~ ... ; .t,"'' . • • • ·- . ... . • • . t . • ~ • • : ·~·'\:;"' • . ,. . • . I . . . . . ,~ : , _ • • - • ~ • . . . • • • . • · : f •• !~ : .. ' -~-- · . : • - •.'. - - • • ..... , • ; • • •• < ,.,;. • • • • • •• :•· • . • - • • ~.-• • • • • • I : • o o o , O, •. ·_ o I • • + ' · - • O ' • · , / , . . . . , . . , . O • ' • I • • • • o o . • f • • • . - I I . . " • • • • • I I • • • • • ' : ' , - ' • • • • • ! " . j : • ' ••• /J4 . ••• • • 'I,, ... ' ·, • • • [. I I. /:_ , i t·•" <~l"' \#: :.r1 ' ,."I .. . . . ..... .,, ·:,~~~.',(,, . ... 1~·-'•·: . -5~a-'l~;, · ~ti.,~~ h -.~. ~ V . I' ... ,f' , ..... ' ..