Fred Bwalya v The People (SCZ Appeal No. 53 of 1991) [1991] ZMSC 83 (6 August 1991)

. . IN . TIE SUPREME COURT Of' ZAMBIA HOLDat AT ·-uaw ' . I . ;/ . (Crl~_lnal . JurtsdtctlQn) .ti . I ' FRED BVALYA CORAM: Rgulut>e. o.c. J •• Sak1J1 and . ,For the appellant FQr the r,spondent: , . . SCZ Appell -1o~ ;-53 of 1991 · . ... . .. .: Appellant. ·., .... :aesl)Olldln~ 6th August,. 19~1. • I ,1 .. . .. .. , to 15 years i · con,tction. I , --- .. -- Chotla. J.s. (JeUvertd ~he Judg!M~t Of'_the, c~u~~ ~: ·-· J •• r· -· · ; : ... 4 ·: · ?i~~~··Jt{t}1-_ 1,;._:t· ,t.t· ~£i'•,f~:,:.~,'l-: The appellant was convlcte<r · of ttte· offence of aggravated. robbery· · c;ontrary to Section 294 ( 1) of the Penal C~e. T~ particulars we~. tll~t. he. with «mother person unknown used violence 1_~ stea!. Jng _ 1 x 25Kg ,bag. o~ unshelled ground nuts valued at K1SO~oo fram ldah kobwe. He wa$ $enten,ed tli)W ·. ap~ls :against llllprisoninen·t with hard l4l>our.. • . ~ ,..., .. 1 •· . ; ~ ~ ) • \; .. (. -i: He · • •,fl\'.. ... .,. , • . • • ' •• .!' ... ••. • • • • . ;' . : .!~:··, -~ . ' • • . ,#, • . • ' , ._ ,_..:,-,,l ' ~~ • .. ,. ·•,• , • • ~.: The brief ftcts of the case ·ver,. that _. ~n -~ )0th o{ .14.~ · 1_989 Jn Mufulira on the Coppetbelt. the Contpltlnant PW1 want ~1th her friend • around 7 hours to the f telds to dlg g~und nuts. They ftl led ,- 25kg beg and then decided to dig some sweet pqtatoes~ pot_atoes the canpla1nont saw the IJ?P~,llant and Ms friend approaching. Tha accused had ln his hands a ,luher . whlc:h was sharp~d at the end whilst ht$ fni§l1'.;IJ. hlld e pang I, The ~ldnant kn$W· the , appellant befo're . ' .... thls -lnctdent os they had st41ed tn the. ·$.aiRe ne1iihbourh004 ,: for about -seven ::: years. The appellant shouted to them ••you wlll dle it '.!~~ have not. s"n thtty. were ·_ looking · . ..fo_. sweet_ As ' . : , : ' •. ,. ,, • • . , ·· : J . : . . . . . ' ' ' . . . ' ' ' ' ' ' • +, • ....... , es to what had · happened. . / . • < • ' - They ~plal-.d what J\ld. . hapl)elled. .. . . . ' '; ~ ,(.,. -~ .... ~i ;-~ .. ti • ~: :..;;_ . ·\.t :;.,;• :ti • :Mi.~~ .. :. . 1 • !· ~ ~ people Hing killed." PW1 a.nd her friend ran away In. t.ht b\dh teavtna the ·:. beg · of ground nuts behtnd. Tben they joined e ~th whlch was used ~1 : peopl• 9oing to the fields. Tbtl' wer, stopped by SON people who tnqulred: The . coaplatnant and her frt~nd were e,corted back to the fteid end they look~ for the '. appellant and his frte,-d in .~e bUsh but did not rtnd thell. The co.plalnant logke.<J fer the b~g of t,r-ound .nuts whl~.h she had . left , behind .: ·. Then they went ·.home ~nd -: aede 4 : .. : when she ran awey and it was aalsstng, ... As they were making · the report . . t~ the ' NJ>Ort to the Ward Chairman. . Chairman. a young girl cmna to info~ thena · thet • certain lady bad bought : ground nuts frcim the appellant. The Chalnaon g~v• t~em one vtgl~~nte io go ~nd check on the lady who had bo~ght some ground nuts. They f~ -the bog of ground nuts with that lady. She was able to ldentlft ~•: bag . as there were somei .fabrlc miasing from the top •nd It .had t· Jiolt ·•t .th• ·~orner • c•~•ed by rats. The bag and the lady were takM to ·the _-Chllnaan'5 -ofrtc, .. . The Cholmlln sent vtgll~ntes to look for the ·oppel.ltnt-•--ln· .. the COfflPOun~, ·. J.b•~ found the appellant WhO w••. later t•k• to the police s~atf~ .. -~!~. '! ~i~:.i;♦-·~.t· -~ .. the ground nuts. ~ ". The appellant geve a story In the lower court that tire' ground nuts ln question were gt ven to him by the mother. He elsQ c·ol l~ the ~~h~r whO .. :,:· · . .';~ .. teitlfled on his behalf, .. ,t ~ •i-' ,·, The learned trial Judge· considered the evldtnce :of·' the .. proJecutl()f) together wtth the evtdtoce addu~ed by the e:ppallant and bl.s- witnesses ,-nd the Judge decided the matter rested on cNdlblUty. _and he dec1d.ed ·to belleve the evidence given by the prosecution and he conv_l~ted the.. appellant of the offence. ,,"\"••, • • ' . . . • 'J.".\1l 1 ' - ' ( ' ··· ,..,. ,•[,. •,.!~•'i:t, • 1 1" ... .; ~. 5..., i ~~.\4J No'f,., . • . ••• :. · .. ~,~ #l • \-t 1 Lf, . .:- . . • \'...' . •• _. . . . . · ...,,~ • \ ~,t_ ·• ) . , I > · .. . . . \* .:, . . . . . I ,• • •• I• •••• , ;' .... . : , ... . ,. : : ..., • I " • ' ' • ' • • h • , , f , , • ' I 1 : ; ; t • • I ; \ , • ' ' - . •{) , . . : :_,,.1 . . .... , . . . . . · The first · ' . The appellant has advanced 11rlous grounds . Of' appeal. . . ground 11 that he had known the c~lotnant PNt end PW3 . for a long time and he could not attack them In broid day light. . He.' has ·.-furth.e~ argued that the complainant• s field was tn the opposltt and different d~:rect1~ to t~elr field whtfe h~ had . g~ne that day. . He hu further on ergue4 t.taat-: the§ _ve1pons rnent_loned were Mve·r fouJ1d netth~r _at hls . hO!Mt. po_llc:• .·s~atlo,n . • . . . . : .. /3;~or·, anywhere \ . - "" J3 I . ·.~: I :,]f' ! or •IIY'dlere, The •aln gl"OUIIII ts · that th~ grpund outs 'wti ich h' sold _.:;. ~ : . port of ihe 60kg seek whlch came ,,_ the mother. · He hes· fur~er argu~ , that ell his sacks WtJr• steined wlth charcoal and that no s.•ck wJs ; Ha hos malnt1lned that the defence waneues gave proper ldenttf!td. evtdenc:e and should have not been e1sUy cUSllllssed b1 th4I learned trUl The appalhnt nas -~~1a1ned 11,Qut the evlden~: of -PW1 ~~ had _, Judge.. said sht knew th• two assailants but later oo tt11tlfle~ that sttt· could .': only recognise the appellont. He has •rgued ~hat her ldentiflca'tloo w•s not a pro~r one. He h4S argued that since he knt\1 the complo.lnant and har fri,nd, he ,ould not attack them during broad day light end thot he was· tnat tile learned trill Judge wrongly · tmpU;ated~ , He nas cor,plalned ..... MlSdJ .... ~ted _himself When .he diSffllSJed ~~s evldtJJc; •• ·. ,:, . ' l ~ I '-Ja , '- .- • • • • • " • • the learned 01 rector ot. Publ le P~secutlons ~•• su~~~ ·: t.he convlctlon. Ke h11 •rtued that tht evSd•~~• •dd~d egaln1t the 4PJ>t11ant was ov1rwhel11Sng and that the learned trl1-l Judge correctlY. : convJttt4 . tht ipPtl lant. The learned Director of : . P1Jl)J le . . Prosecutions has · referrecf to th• evidence of PWZ t.he I ady Who had CM)ugnt tr,. 9round ru,ts tr011 .· the. 4ppelltnt. The beg found on PWZ WIS lCl•n~lfled end NCOinlsed by PIO IS her beg end she gava Nasons for 4otng so enc, the Jearned D&re;tor of . Public Prosecutions has urged the court to dl_smlss the .appel~ant•s appeal. · -· . . . . . , 1 The evidence also shows that the appellont . knew · tht compl1lnant. We have eonsldtered the e"1*ce on r4cord and : tne :Sui.lsstons by ·the learned Director of PubllC Pros•utlons. -· The evidence shows that ~hen the appellant attacked the complainant Jt wes dona du_rl119'.' J>road d'1 light~ The appellant 1n hls evlde{'Ce dtd edntlt that ·the coaapl•l~ont,. kn• hlll. The~ ts also evldenc:a of the Chalnaan wbO was epproacbed by-·the complainant. The Ch1lnnan 1 1 e-wldence $!'towed thot whtn th• compl1lnaAt repgrted th9 111atter to hlaJ, PW1 Mntloned that th&y had been attac;ked ~Y 8N:a1ya. T~ Chairman told tht c;01Rpl1lnaJtt and her friend to go hOIIICt since she knew Bwolya and that he would look for him. The ChaSrun sent SOiie vJgHantes ~o later found the ~ppelhnt. The appellant was tau,·r connecttd to the offence by : the evidence of PW2 who said that she had bought the groun~ nuts fJ"9111 . . . . ·. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . • '} .... ~- . '" , ti, i'> • • ~l~ ;.l~; •. t ,('.:1,.,-.: :: :Jyi.,t~ . ;\ . 1~~(, . ;~ - · J4 .,. The ground nuts were tdenttfled In the sack •~ lnvol ved . ln this ~tter. . . . . .. '''i~Tc "f, ~!;;°/ 1 li.. Jff~ ·-.·- ~~s:! the accused,. The evidence ShOV$ the ov_tdence . of ·thff: reco.gnlsed by PW1 as her bag. crust naan that the appellant. was The Judge . considered the evldenc•- of the prosecution witnesses.· and the evldem:e of. the appe 11 ant ond his wt tnesses and accepted the prose~ut lat:a • s -· :cas~. . We . do · not see where the judge mtsdtrected him$elf When he resolv~ ~h•.r.matter on~ ... ' credlb111ty. The complelnanC and her fr.lend knew the _-appellant very well.-·. · rhe offence took place during broad da, light end the <IUQtlon of mi$t6ken tdentJty could not ,rise. particularly when.the same ground nuts were pro~ed' to have been sold to PW2 by the appell1nt. The arg""8nts p~t fontard ebout The i:atstaken Identity and wrong Jppe•l agolnst convlction ls therefore di11DlS$ed• Ther• cen never be •n .: appeel a91lnst a mand,wry t11lnt11an.: 's.~tenee, .. · i111>1tc1tlon cannot therc&fore succeed. .-c. ~ . . . . . ' . . . . . • , · : \~ · · .. v : ' • ·····-············-·,···-·····~·- · ' . N .. $~ NGULUBl: , . . , DEPUTY CRIEF\ 1USTIC£ . • ,. , ti' . \ .. . , . ' •. ,,, V . ( . . . ••I • a ♦ f > " - • 11