JGMT Patrick new

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

BUKOBA SUB REGISTRY

AT BUKOBA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SESSION NO. 403 OF 2025

REPUBLIC

VERSUS PATRICK S/O ELIAS

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT Date of last order: 05/02/2025 Date of Judgment:11/02/2025 BEFORE: G.P. MALATA, J The accused, Patrick Elias, aged 33 years, a haya by tribe, peasant and resident of Mlela Village, Kishanda ward within Muleba District in Kagera Region stood charged for an offence of manslaughter contrary to sections 195 and 198 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022 for causing death of one Jenipher Patrick @Jane. The death occurred on 25th July, 2024 at Bunyagongo Village, Nshamba ward within Muleba District in Kagera Region. In nutshell, the accused and deceased were spouses living together, in the house of one Sadoki Revelian @ Mulokozi the accused’s employer. On the material date, at evening hours the accused returned home and find deceased absent. He remained at home. 1 While at home the deceased returned home at midnight, she knocked the house’s door. The accused opened the door and noticed that, the deceased lying down because of too much drink. The accused became furious for the deceased’s behaviour of coming back at home at midnight and drunken. The accused assault deceased on different parts of her body using an instrument locally known in Kagera as Kiosho. The accused took deceased inside the house where he gave her some food and thereafter, they went sleep. In the morning hours, the accused woke up and tried to call the deceased but received no response. He thus

discovered that, the deceased passed away. Scared by the incident, the accused went to call one Sadoki Revelian @Mulokozi where he narrated the incidence. Eventually, the Accused run away. Sadoki Revelian @Mulokozi visited the crime scene and witnessed the body of the deceased being laid on bed while covered with a bed sheet. He reported the incident to Nshamba Police Station, whereby the police officers arrived at the crime of scene while accompanied by a Medical Officer. The deceased’s body was examined and the report on post-mortem examination revealed that, the death was due to internal bleeding following fracture of skull. The accused was thereafter arrested and brought to Muleba Police Station, where he was interrogated and admitted to have caused the death of the deceased. On completion of investigation, the Republic filed a charge of manslaughter against the accused contrary to sections 195 and 198 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16 R.E. 2022. 2 On 05/02/2025, parties to the case appeared before this court for preliminary hearing. The Republic appeared through Ms. Matilda Assey learned State Attorney whereas the accused appeared represented by Mr. Pereus Mutasingwa learned counsel. Upon the charge for manslaughter being read over and explained to the accused, the accused pleaded guilty to the offence he stood charged and stated that; “Ni kweli kuwa nilisababisha kifo cha

Jenipher Patrick @Jane bila kukusudia”. The court recorded the said plea of guilty as per the accused’s words. Thereafter, facts of the case were read over and explained to the accused and in return he replied that; “Maelezo yaliyosomwa ni ya kweli na hivyo ndivyo tukio lilivyotokea”. Upon being satisfied of unequivocal plea of guilty by the accused, one, Patrick Elias to the offence of Manslaughter for causing the death of one Jenipher Patrick @Jane as stated herein above, this court in terms of section 228 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap.20 R.E. 2022, this court found the accused guilty for the offence of manslaughter c/s 195 and 198 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16 R.E.

2022. The section reads that; (1) The substance of the charge shall be stated to the accused person by the court, and he shall be asked whether he admits or denies the truth of the charge (2) Where the accused person admits the truth of the charge, his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words he uses and the 3 magistrate shall convict him and pass sentence upon or make an order against him, unless there appears to be sufficient cause to the contrary. Ultimately, upon finding the accused guilty for the offence of manslaughter as stated herein, this court entered conviction of the accused for the offence pursuant to section 228 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In entering conviction, the court invited the both counsels for antecedents and mitigation accordingly. Ms. Matilda Assey learned State Attorney on behalf of the Republic stated that, they have no previous criminal record by the accused. However, she submitted that, stiff sentenced punishment be imposed for the reason that; one, to make deterrence to the people of similar conduct, two, the accused used weapon in beating the deceased who had nothing, three, the attack was directed to delicate area, that is at the head, four, the accused used excessive force in beating the deceased, thus causing head fracture leading to brain injury and severe breeding, five, the deceased was drunken. By way of

mitigation, Mr. Pereus Mutasingwa learned counsel of the accused prayed for lenience sentence for the reasons that; first, the accused is first offender, second, accused has thirty-three (33) years only, thus a youth, third, accused has one child who is now living with accused’s mother both of them depend on the accused for their 4 survivorship, fourth, accused’s mother is aged eight three (83) years old, thus need assistance from the accused, sixth, the deceased’s conduct of coming back home at midnight is uncalled for behaviour, thus turning accused angry, seventh, accused was in love with his wife despite such uncalled for behaviour, eighth, accused was provoked by deceased’s conduct of being drunken and returning back home at midnight, ninth, accused used the weapon which was just around the house, tenth, accused’s intention was just to warn his beloved wife of her unbecoming behaviour and not to kill her, eleventh, the accused took the deceased from outside to their room and slept with deceased up to morning hours, when he discovered that his wife was no longer alive, twelfth, accused has throughout confessing to have caused the death of the deceased, including before this court and thirteenth, accused has been in custody for seven (7) clear months. Having convicted the accused and assembled antecedents and mitigation, this court is now placed to consider the appropriate

sentence to be imposed to accused. To start with, the sentence for a person convicted for manslaughter c/s 195 of the Penal Code is life imprisonment. Section 198 of the Penal Code provides for sentence that; “Any person who commits manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life”. It should be clearly understood that, upon a person being convicted for manslaughter has to serve a sentence of imprisonment for life. However, courts have developed factors for consideration as to which appropriate sentence be imposed on case-to-case 5 depending on the circumstances of its occurrence. In other words, the heavier the sentence depend on the circumstances under which the murder took place leading to manslaughter. In sentencing, courts have been; one, identifying statutory sentencing range for the offence – the maximum and minimum sentences in law, two, determining level of seriousness of the offence within the range, three, considering all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors for the offence, four, considering of the accused’s personal circumstances, any other offences committed by accused, totality principle, co- accused’s sentence, any co-operation with authorities and information from the victim, five, considering predominance of the offence in the society and six, considering circumstances under which the offence took place, seven, considering range of force applied leading

to termination of deceased’s life. Both counsels have taken through, this court on what each party sees as an appropriate sentence to the accused in the circumstances of this case. Taking away, one’s life is serious offence under our law in which its penalty is to suffer death by hanging. Section 197 of the Penal Code refers. However, there are circumstances, where death occurs unplanned such as; negligence, provocation, fight, mistake of fact, defending right, self defence etc. Those incidences may lead to manslaughter. Further, the way the manslaughter occurred becomes one of the determining factors in awarding sentence. Also, the nature of weapon used, force 6 exerted in killing, gravity of wound, conduct of accused before, during and after commission of offence are among other factors to be considered by the court in assessing and awarding appropriate sentence on case-to-case basis. In the present case, all have already been said by the counsels on the heavier or lenience sentence to be awarded. This court, having taken all the circumstances, it finds that; one, the deceased was drunken, two, deceased is a woman, deceased had no weapon, three, accused attacked the deceased using weapon locally known Kiosho made by iron with wooden holder, four, the attack was directed to delicate area, that is at the head, five, the accused used excessive force in beating the deceased, thus

causing head fracture leading to brain injury and severe breeding. Undeniably, the accused acted rudely against the deceased in disciplining for her behaviour of returning home at midnight drunken. The accused who was sober could have paused until morning and asked the deceased of any of the alleged misconduct. Offences of murdering people in Kagera region has become predominant, thus being the top region out of twenty-six regions. Additionally, this court has taken into account similar principles as echoed in the case of Republic Vs. Musa Muganda (1990) TLR 9, Republic Vs Mohamed Mohamed (1987) TLR 34 and Republic Vs. Hussein Rajab (1982) TLR 302. 7 The accused’s unbecoming behaviour of taking law on his hands need to be curtailed, short of that terminating one’s life will be taken by the public so easily, thus ending life of many innocent persons. If not deterred, it will be inspiring and perpetuate uncalled for deaths and causing unnecessary troublesomeness to the family and nation as whole. In the event, this court hereby finds that, the accused need to be punished for the offence. In the circumstances, justice will be seen to have been done if the accused, Patrick Elias is condemned to serve three (3) years imprisonment.

ORDER ACCORDINGLY DATED at BUKOBA this 11th February, 2025. G.P. MALATA

JUDGE 11/02/2025 JUDGEMENT delivered at BUKOBA this 11th February, 2025 in the presence of all parties. G.P. MALATA

JUDGE 11/02/2025 8