iii. Number of items stolen: The Charge Sheet states that the number of stolen items were one hundred (100) sets of clutch covers while Prosecution Witness 1, Mr Mika said they were two hundred and fifty (250) sets of clutch covers. iv. Value of items stolen: The Charge Sheet states that the items were valued at Eight Hundred Thousand Tanzania Shillings (Tshs. 800,000/=) while Prosecution Witness 1, Mr Mika testified to their value being Two Million Two Hundred Thousand Tanzania Shillings (Tshs. 2,200,000/=). v. Proof that the offence of armed robbery occurred. The Applicant states that Prosecution Witness 4, Mr. Ally Saidi who was one of the two persons alleged to have been attacked and injured during the robbery did not testify to seeing the Applicant at the scene of the robbery incident. The Applicant maintains therefore, that it was wrong to charge him with the offence of armed robbery and that, instead he should have at most, been charged with the offence of being in possession of stolen property. vi. The authenticity of the Police Form 3 issued to the alleged victim of the armed robbery: Prosecution Witn ss 4, Mr. Ally Saidi. The Police Form 3 is issued by a Police Officer who holds the rank of Police Constable and above, to a person claiming to have been injured as a result of a criminal act. The form allows him or her to obtain medical attention from a health facility. The Applicant contends that there was no prosecution testimony to authenticate the Police Form 3 issued to Mr. Ally Saidi. 50