Kangwindi v People (Appeal 132 of 1984) [1987] ZMSC 47 (11 August 1987)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA APPEAL NO. 132/1984 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) KANYANGU KANGWINDI APPELLANT AND THE PEOPLE RESPONDENT Coram: Ngulube, D. C. J., Gardner and Sakala, JJ. S. 11th August, 1987 For the Appellant, in person For the Respondent, Mr. K. C. Chanda JUDGMENT Ngulube, D. C. J., delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was tried and convicted on a charge of stock theft for which he received eight years imprisonment with hard labour. The particulars were that he together with two other co-accused, who have not appealed to us stole five head of cattle the property of PW.8. In his written grounds of appeal the appellant complains that some of the prosecution witnesses were remanded in custody for a few days to induce them to give evidence. The witnesses concerned were his grandfather, PW.2, and another witness PW3. The reason for their detention in prison was that they were found to be refractory witnesses who were refusing to testify. For the appellant's information the law permits the courts to imprison witnesses of this nature, since it is in the interest of justice that those who know something about a case must assist the court to arrive at the truth of the case. The additional complaint by the appellant, that the witnesses who did give evidence did so out of fear, has no merit. There was clear evidence in this case that the complainant's five animals were stolen. The witnesses who implicated the appellant, namely /2............ PWs 4, - J2 - PWs 4, 5 and 6, all gave evidence to the effect that the appellant and the co-accused had slaughtered some of the animals in the bush and were selling the meat. PW. 4 was called by the appellant to go and buy some meat. PW.5 was also called by the appellant although he did not buy any meat since, according to this witness, the appellant refused to allow him to do so after the witness had refused to assist in selling the meat. PW6 was an independent witness who was collecting firewood in the bush when he came across the appellant and his co-accused selling the meat to customers. Quite apart from this evidence there was a full confession statement which the appellant made to PW.10, the arresting officer. The confession was admitted without any objection from the appellant whose only complaint was that it was a false statement which he had not made. That being the case the fact whether the appellant did or did not make the statement became a general issue. On the totallity of the evidence, the statement was properly accepted and confirmed the evidence of the three witnesses the appellant complained about. The evidence was simply over­ whelming and there is no basis for us to interfere. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appellant appeals against his sentence of ei^ht years imprison­ ment with hard labour. As he had a previous conviction of stock theft he became liable to the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years. Since the appellant commercialised the theft and he made a profit out of it, the sentence of eight years was entirely appropriate. The appeal against sentence is also dismissed. M. S. Ngulube DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE E. L. Sakala SUPREME COURT JUDGE B”T*' Gardner............ SUPREME COURT JUDGE