IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND

                                                                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.37/99

In the matter between:

 

PETROS SIKELELA MAHLANGU

VS

THE KING

 

CORAM                                 :                                   MATSEBULA J

                                                            :                       MAPHALALA J

FOR THE APPELLANT                   :                       IN PERSON

 

 

The accused who was charged on four counts was convicted on four counts.  Two counts i.e. counts one and two were robbery and the other two i.e. counts 3 and 4 were under the provisions of ARMS AND AMMUNITIONS ACT 24/1964 as amended.

 

He was sentenced as follows:

Count one        -           Five (5) years imprisonment without an option of a fine

Count two        -           Five (5) years’ imprisonment without the option of a fine.

Count three      -           Five (5) years’ which three (3) years is suspended for 3 years on certain conditions.

Count four        -           Six (6) months imprisonment without the option of a fine.

The sentence of counts 3 and 4 were ordered to run consecutively.

 

The accused noted an appeal against both the conviction and sentence.

 

Under conviction the appellant advances four (4) grounds why he challenges the residing magistrate’s reasons for a conviction.

(a)    that he had pleaded not guilty and therefore the magistrate ought to have acquitted and discharged him;

(b)   there was no corroboration of the Crown witnesses’ evidence, in as much as one witness failed to describe the clothes warned by the robber.  Witnesses contradicted each other;

(c)    the police officer failed to mount an identification parade for the identification of the alleged robber;

(d)   the court failed to explain the accused’s rights to legal representation;

(e)    the court erred in convicting the appellant of a gun found in the police possession’

 

As against the sentence:-

(i)                  The sentence of ten (10) years is severely harsh and leads to a sense of shock.

(ii)                Appellant is first offender.

 

The learned magistrate heard evidence of Crown witnesses PW2 Neille Barrie Harvey and PW3 Catherine Nkambule and he accepted the witnesses’ evidence about the commission fo the crime on counts 1 and 2.  These crimes were committed in broad daylight and PW2 and PW3 had ample opportunity to identify the appellant.

 

The appellant after his arrest and having being duly cautioned in terms of the Judge’s Rules went and pointed out at a spot where the pistol was found.  The rounds of ammunitions and the exhibits were serviceable.

 

Appellant also pointed out a partly burned cheque handed in as exhibit as “2”.  The cheque was identified by PW3 as part of the stolen loot.

 

The learned magistrate found corroboraiton of the Crown evidence and accepted the evidence as credible.  He had no doubt that the appellant had properly been identified.  The plea of not guilty did not assist the appellant.  Appellant was perfectly entitled to plead not guilty and the Crown led evidence to prove that he was guilty.  The Magistrate had explained legal right to representation to the accused.

 

Sentence is in the trial court’s discretion and unless there is a clear misdirection on the part of Magistrate an appeal court cannot interfere.  The learned Magistrate stated reasons, why he imposed sentenced he imposed.  I cannot find no reason to interfere with the sentence.

 

In the result, the appeal has no merits whatsoever, both against the conviction and sentence.  I accordingly dismiss it.

 

 

 

 

J.M. MATSEBULA

JUDGE