R. v. Juma s/o Rashid, Crim. Rev. 36-DDM-72, 3/6/72.
MNZAVZS, J. The two accuseds were charged with and convicted of stealing from motor-vehicle c/ss 269 (c) and 265 of the Penal Code and each sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. There can be no doubt that the conviction was based on clear and ample evidence. This court is not however all that sure that the sentence in respect of the 1st accused, in the surrounding circumstances of the case ought to have been the same as that imposed on the 2nd accused. The amount of property and money stolen was no doubt big. The total value amounted to Shs. 3,118/=. Because of this, severe sentences were clearly indicated. But, notwithstanding this aggravating circumstance, the learned resident magistrate failed to see that the first accused needed to be treated more leniently than the 2nd accused. The record shows that the 1st accused was a first offender whereas the 2nd accused had a similar previous conviction last year. Some leniency in sentencing should always be exercised in respect of first offenders. The sentence in respect of the 1st accused, which sentence is not supported by the Republic is reduced to 18 moths imprisonment. The sentence in respect of the 2nd accused is to stand and is hereby confirmed.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.