Zuda v People (SCZ Appeal 8 of 1993) [1993] ZMSC 114 (16 February 1993)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: SCZ APPEAL NO. 8 OF 1993 CHARLES ZUDA Appellant And THE PEOPLE Respondent CORAM: Gardner, Sakala and Chaila JJJ. S. 16th February 1993 Mr. M. H. A. Samad, Senior Legal;Aid Counsel for the appellant Mr. L. N. Muuka, State Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Gardner, J. S. delivered the judgment of the court. ■ ’ ■■ - ,. - The appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery. The particulars of the offence were that, he, on the,4th December, 1988 at Lusaka whilst actin< together with other people unknown did steal one pair of shoes valued at K595.1 the property of Goodson Mwambeu and at or immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing the said property did use or threaten to use actual violence to the said Goodson Mwambeu, in order to prevent resistance to its being stolen. ■ •' T.' ■ • '-n'" ’ ■ ’.‘■'ji'4'" ’ The facts of the case were that the complainant, PW1, was walking home late at night when someone grabbed him from behind and others removed his shoes. The complainant said he knew one of the men before and, because there was moonlight, he recognised him as Charles Zuda, the appellant. The complainant reported the matter to the police and a week later whilst he was at the house of a friend he saw the appellant. He challenged the appellant as being the person who had stolen his shoes and the appellant said: "let's go to Kanyama", where he had hidden the shoes. He reported the matter to the police who were led to Kanyama where the shoes were hidden by the appellant. - . ■ 'Ji I* K There was evidence from the witness who purchased the pair of shoes from the appellant and to whom the appellant led the police. / Mr. Samad on behalf of the appellant has argued that the only evidence that there was more than one person who attacked the complainant was that of the complainant himself. As there was evidence that the complainant had been drinking, his evidence In this respect could not be relied upon. Hr. Samad has suggested that because of that doubt, whether the complainant was assaulted by more than one person, he should be convicted Of robbery only andbe given a lesser sentence because the value of the goods was not very great. When the complainant gave evidence he was cross-examined and agreed with counsel for the defence that he had been drinking, it was not suggested to him* however* that he was so drunk that he was not aware of what was happening when no was assaulted* wa cannot find anything in the evidence to suggest that the complainant was not in a state to know whether there was sore than one person when he was assaulted. We are Quite satisfied that in this respect his evidence was properly accepted by the learned trial judge. In the circumstances, there was proper evidence of identification of someone who was known before to the . appellant, and, if there was any doubt at all about identification, there was evidence of something more in the leading of t^^lice to the purchaser of the shoes. There is no ground for us to -'interfere’with the *h findings of the learned trial judge. ■"I The appeal against conviction Is dismissed. There is no appeal . . -.•-M•• ’ V" - against the mandatory sentence of fifteen years imprisonment with hard labour I? t. 'j' •*’ >'W.' £. L. Sakaia SUPREME COURT JUDGE M. S. Chaila SUPREME COURT JUDGE Jr J4