SAFLII [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Botswana: Court of Appeal

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> Botswana: Court of Appeal >> 1981 >> [1981] BWCA 2

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Help]

Mohamed v The State (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1981) [1981] BWCA 2 (15 June 1981)

PDF of original document.PDF of original document

.RTF of original document

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE_REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA
Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1981
Appellant Respondent
In the matter between:
RASKID MOHAMED vs THE STATE
Appellant in Person
G. R. Gareebine for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
Coram:   Maisels, P
Dendy-Young, J.A. Aguda, J.A.
AGUDA, J.A.
The appellant together with other two persons were charged with robbery before the Magistrate in Lobatse. The three of them pleaded guilty after the charge had been explained to them. The 1st accused was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment. The present appellant who was 2nd accused and the third appellant were each sentenced to 8 years. From that sentence the appellant appealed to the High Court; and his appeal having been dismissed sought leave to appeal to this Court.
The facts were that the appellant and 1st accused conceived the idea of robbing the bank of money in transit from Lobatse to another village.

2.
They got in touch with the third accused who was the driver of the Bank's vehicle which was to convey the money. He gsve them a tip off as to when the van would leave Lobatse on the day of the incident.
As soon as the ^an reached the agreed spot the third accused stopped the vehicle as previously agreed pretending that something was wrong with it. Then 1rt accused and the appellant jumped ^^ upon the occupants of the vehicle and assaulted them and made away with boxes containing money. mhe amount involved was over P16 000. Fortunately practically all the money was recovered, the only amount not recovered was P2.40. Those were the ficts upon which they pleaded guilty and were convicted. As I hive said earlier, the appellant appealed to the High Court against sentence. The appeal was dismissed. In further appeal to this court he merely repeated what he had said to the High Court in mitigation of sentence, namely, that he is a family man. It is not the duty of this court to intervene in the discretion of the trial Judge in the sentence he has passed unless the sentence was so outrageous as to induce a sense of shock or if the trial judge went en wrong principles or misdirected himself on relevant facts.

1

I k
3.

No such has been established in this case. The learned Chief
'in Justice'dismissing his appeal took everything favourable to
the appellant into consideration. We therefore see no reason
why that judgment should be disturbed. Therefore the appeal
is dismissed.
T. A. AGUDA Judge of Appeal

I agree
I. A. MAISELS
President of Court of Appeal


I agree

J. H. Dendy-Young Judge of Appeal

LOBATSE
15th June, 1981

SAFLII: | Terms of Use | Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/bw/cases/BWCA/1981/2.html