LIMI SHIJA IGEMBE0001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA SUMBAWANGA SUB-REGISTRY CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO.69 OF 2022 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS LIMI D/O SHIJA @ IGEMBE Last Order: 18th of June 2024 Judgement on 02nd of July 2024. JUDGMENT NANGELA, J.: LIMI d/o SHIJA IGEMBErthe^accused', stands charged with murder of her own ^qj^banckcjne, MASUNGA s/o KASHINJE© TUNGU, contrary to^section 196 and 197 of the f a "a Penal Code, Cap. 16 R(E. 202^ She, however, utterly denies having ever committed sucha^heinous act. The facts are^brieLA misunderstanding between Limi d/o Shija Igejnoe and_h_er/husband Masunga s/o Kashinje @Tungu had ensued^^home^about several farms and cattle which the < y family had oought out on dowry they had received after Limi's daughtecgot married. It was alleged that her husband Masunga had prevented the family from cultivating those farmlands. As the family dispute kept boiling beneath unquenchably, more sinister plans were born out of it, which culminated into a conspiracy to eliminate Limi d/o Shija Igembe. The alleged conspiracy was hatched by Masunga s/o Kashinje @Tungu, her husband. As the D-day approached, the facts reveal that, in the month of May 2021, her husband Page 1 of 19 Masunga had hired two unnamed assailants and granted them TZS 2million to takeout Limi d/o Shija Igembe, his wife, However, the plot spilled out of the bottle as Limi d/o Shija Igembe knew about it on a day she had gone to an auction (Mnadani). On that day at the auction (Mnadani) area, Limi d/o Shija Igembe spotted her husband (Masunga) with two men. It was alleged that, as she became suspicious in her heart that something sinister was in the offing she consequently .and immediately left the Mnadani area. On her way, however, Xli'ose two men she had seen in the company of her husb.and_caught up with her along the way. It was further alleged that, it was at that time when they divulged to her that,sbe wasKto'be assassinated at 9.00pm of the same day, by4>rder<jof her husband, Masunga, who had handed them TZS,2millibn-. Z The alleged facts-were£further stated to the effects that, (I X> upon receiving suph blfcjod chilling information, Limi d/o Shija Igembe played it cleayZand convinced her would-be assassins to turn the/ti^f^over her husband and, that, she would add TZS 2million_more^nffi?bounty to be TZS 4million. It was averred that the hired goons agreed to the plan and, at 9.00pm of the same^unkpown) day, in the month of May 2021, they did come to Mr. Masunga's house and found him outside his house, eating. It was alleged that they caught him and took him a few meters from the house, thereby killed and buried him and, afterwards, left the scene of the crime. It was alleged that, after the incident, Limi d/o Shija Igembe and her two sons, left to Mpimbwe village in Sumbawanga. But after suspicion regarding the whereabouts of Page 2 of 19 Masunga s/o Kashinje@Tungu surfaced in the village and, following the subsequent abscondment, as well, of Limi d/o Shija Igembe from her homestead, the leadership of the area decided to inform the Police, and a search for Limi d/o Shija Igembe was mounted leading to her arrest in Mpimbwe Villege, Sumbawanga. She was subsequently brought to Kibage Village in Katavi and later arraigned in court facing a charge of murder. When this case came for its .full hearing on(the 18^ of June 2024, the accused Limi d/o Shija Igembe denied^the charges. On that account, the prosecution cal led<five witnesses I . \\ who testified as Pw-1, Pw-2, Pw-3, Pw^Cand PW-5 and tendered \'v three exhibits (Exh.P-1 (a Postmortefrk\Report), Exh.P-2 (Caution Statement of the accused/and Exh.P.3 (a sketch Map of the scene of crime. In his testimony^Pw-1 (Kurwa s/o Nkwabi Mahinda) testified that being .t^chairman of the Kabage Village, in May 2021 one Masunga s/oJ<ashinje@Tungu, (now believed to be deceased) wen?missing^nd, afterwards, Masunga's wife also vanished frdrrFthe vilieig'er's sight for no reasons. He told this court that upon~seafch for the accused, she was found living at Mp^mbwe^apafwhich is near Sumbawanga on the 1st of Nov^De^2021 and was brought to Kabage Village on the 2nd of November 2021. According to Pw-1, it was Him who informed the Police (the OC-CID) Tanganyika District who later came to Kabage and interrogated the accused. Pw-1 supports the testimony of Pw-2 (SP-Meshaki Philipo Mkomwa) the then OC-CID of Tanganyika. In his testimony Pw-2 informed this court that on the 19th of July 2021 information was received at Kibo Police Station, Tanganyika Page 3 of 19 by Kabage Village Executive Officer (VEO) regarding a resident of his village who went missing and an investigation file, No. TNG/CID/PE/9/2021 was opened. According to Pw-2, on the 1st of November 2021, Pw-2 received information from Pw-1 about the arrest of the accused Limi d/o Shija Igembe at Msila Village in Sumbawanga District which borders Mpimbwe Village. Pw-2 informed this court about his visit to Kafiage on.the 3rd of November 2021, for a formal arrest after being informed of the arrival of the accused Limi d/o Shija Igembe-and/her two sons (Petero and Said) from Sumba.Wangayjwas made. He testified that, upon his initial questioningjpf. the accused about the whereabouts of her husband, her response was that her husband was killed and buried aMheir homestead and, that, the reason for his killing was a difpute^about farmlands (shambas) and dowry which//had\been,2paid to the family after their daughter got betrofoed^ahd'Tater married. Pw-2 told this court that, the accused did lehif him and the rest of Police officers who accompaniedfoim, to the place where the deceased was buried. /itwas Pw^2's testimony that later, on the 4th of November 2021--, foe place was exhumed and human skeletal remains, were uncovered which include the human skull, and bones, all of which, a doctor who had accompanied them, and the same did testify as Pw-3, confirmed that they were human remains. Pw-2 told this court that samples were later taken for Deoxyribonucleic acid, (DNA) test and the rest of the remains were honourably laid to rest having followed the rightful burial manners. According to Pw-2, the accused had told him that her husband Page 4 of 19 was killed by two people she had hired, and she did not know the names of the killers though she could identify them by face only. As I stated, Pw-3 (Dr. Musa Angelo Kachele) confirmed to the court that the remains found at the site which the accused had shown them, were human remains and that they belonged to an adult male person given how the pelvic bones looked like. He also told this court that, the skull of the deceased(had a c^ck that started from the front side down to the left side. 'Hextestified that, due to the fracture he had observed, his-was,_air opinion , \\/y that a blunt but heavy instrument had . beenXused to hit the deceased on the head and, for thaLmat^xthe/deceased must have died out of severe traumatic brain injury and haemorrhage. He tendered in court a postmortem report which was admitted as Exh.P-1. ff Xn On the other hand, Pw24 (WP.12566-DC Monica) from Mishamo Police Postxtestified about the assignment given to her on the 3rd ofiN&yembe^2021, which involved writing the caution statement ofxthe accused person. Pw-4 told this court that the accused^ad explained to her that while she had gone to (V V Mnad^uaijea on the month of May 2021, she saw her husband with two people, her husband being the third person, and that, being suspicious that something bad was in the offing, she left the place and returned home. According to Pw-4, on the way the two people caught-up with the accused and informed her of their being hired by Masunga s/o Kashinje @Tungu (her husband) to kill her on the same night and, that, they had already been given TZS 2miilion Page 5 of 19 for the task. According to Pw-4, the accused narrated to her for the record that she promised the two assailants (one whom she named as Mwanahale) an addition TZS 2million so that they should, instead turn the tides on her husband and the deal was thereby sealed. Pw-4 told this court that the accused narrated to her that at 9.00 pm the assailants did come and killed the deceased and buried him on the same night and left. The caution statement was admitted as Exh.P-2. ../( * The last witness for the prosecution was Pw-5\(G.-8430 D.CPL Emmanuel of Kibo Police Station, Tanganyika-District). His testimony was to the effect that he didigo to l^abage Village on the 3rd and 4th. of November ,2021. and did witness the exhumation of the remains of.a*deadsperson at the homestead of the accused after the accused?had confessed that she killed her husband by the help of two<young men and buried him at a place where they used^t^make^charcoal. He told the court that the exhumation wE?s\ione in the presence of Pw-1, Pw-2 and Pw-3 (DnjOsng&b) andXhat the skeletal remains found there were otan^aduiFmale human. /i^also raid this court that he drew up a sketch map on thes4^of^lovember 2021 and took the sample collected at the site for purposes of DNA testing and that, the samples also included those of the deceased's son for comparative DNA analysis by the Chief Government Chemist. Pw-5 told this court, that the sample taken to the Chief Government Chemist were labelled as No.3484 of 2021 but a report from the Chief Government Chemist revealed that the DNA sample taken was Page 6 of 19 insufficient to give results. He tendered a sketch map which was admitted as Exh.P-3. When asked during cross-examination regarding whether, he had tendered in court any evidence to show that samples were taken to the Chief Government Chemist for DNA testing as alleged, Pw-5 admitted having failed to tender in court both the samples taken to the Chief Government Chemist or the letter containing the substantive response thereof. X * After the closure of the prosecution case, this^court did find that the accused had a case to answer^The>ac_cused was also addressed in terms of Section 293^2) ofVfe CPA and was reminded of her several rights there.underASher however, chose to defend herself while under oath and called no witness to her A\ • V aid. In her defence, the accused'Cimi d/o Shija Igembe testified as Dw-1. In her testimony, .DwtI denied being involved in the killing of her husband 'ifx^aH^he was dead. She told this court that, what she knows^s that her husband, one Masunga s/o Kashinje @^fmkju, hadkold her that he was heading to Songea and that wasJonqXifne about three years now and she decided to .leave Kabage heading to Kesekela in Mpimbwe after some ft V m01^/ According to Dw-1, she used to live well with her husband and had heard about the prosecution witnesses' testimonies alleging that she killed her husband, a fact she denied. She even denied having taken any body and shown or locate the place where her husband was believed to be buried. She told this court that, on the date she was brought from Mpimbwe with her two sons, Said Charles and Petero s/o Masunga, to Kabage Village, Page 7 of 19 she did find many and angry people waiting for her at her homestead while she knew nothing and was later taken to Police and then to the court. She testified that she was unaware of the death of her husband and that what she was aware of is that her husband had went to look for new farmlands. She urged this court to set her free without hesitation. During cross-examination, she told this court that, her husband left, and nobody asked her about her whereabouts. ^She told the court further that, as for the Sukuma people^it is'^not surprising for the husband to just leave his wiferjust.like that, especially once the wife is aging as Dv^l wasAWhen asked why she left Kabage Village she told this cojJtLth.at«he just decided to leave and change a place wlierershe was living and so, she left her properties which sl^e wasxplanning to shift thereafter. She denied having led Police to^the place where the human remains were exk^med^andstated that she never new a person called Mwanahale. At^thafjuncture, the defence case came to an end. xrAs'thexestablished legal principles regarding proof would require, he^who^alleges must prove. Section 110 of the Evidence Act/s^ap^O R.E. 2022 harbours that principle. In this case, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. This being a criminal case, the prosecution is duty bound to prove the case against the accused person on a beyond reasonable doubt threshold. See the case Said Hemed vs. Republic [1987] TLR 117.The principle is also well established that, an accused person does not assume any burden to prove his innocence. See the case of Sostenes Myazagiro @ Nyarushasi vs. Republic, Crim. Page 8 of 19 Appeal No. 276 of 2017. (See also the cases of Arman Guehi Vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2010 and Nyeura Patrick vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2013 (all unreported). As a matter of law, it is also trite that, neither should an accused person be convicted based on the weakness of his defence or inability to defend himself, or In view of the principles stated^inereaboye, the question xX that calls the attention of this courtJsjwhethep'the prosecution >^5?“—"— case was proved beyond reasonablexdpubt. Before I delve into establishing or providing a.response toAhat question, it is worth noting that, in this case, the/eviderice being relied upon by the prosecution is largely.ycircumstantial. In law, circumstantial evidence is evidencexnot drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. Ibis, fqp that matter, indirect evidence that does not, on its face^prove^afact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that^^^fi^iexists. • • \\Inttie entire prosecution case, nobody claims to be an eyewitness who saw the accused person killing or even hiring people to kill the person alleged to be Masunga s/o Kashinje @ Tungu. I also refer to the deceased as "a person alleged to be Masunga s/o Kashinje @ Tungd’ simply because there is no evidence tendered that proves beyond doubt that the remains found buried at the homestead of the accused were of one Masunga s/o Kashinje @ Tungu. Whether Masunga s/o Kashinje Page 9 of 19 @ Tungu is dead and whether the remains exhumed around his compound belonged to him are, as well, facts which entirely rely on circumstantial evidence as I shall demonstrate later hereunder. When a case seems to be entirely resting on circumstantial evidence, and what should a trial court do if it is to arrive at a finding that the accused is guilt of the offence charged, were issues succinctly discussed by the Court of Appeal A of Tanzania in the case of Didas s/o Siria vs. The Republic, Crim. Appeal No.20 of 1979 (CAT) (at Arush^(Unreported). In that case the late Chief Justice Nyalali^as he tljien was) made it clear that: t.______ "in order to justify^the inference of guilt, the inculpatoryXacts ™fst be incompatible' wft^thexinri6cence of the accused ancy incapable of expianatiory^upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of z^This. being^an offence of murder, the following ingredients ff v\ y must also be fully established beyond reasonable doubt by the JJ prosecution, i.e., that: (a) a person alleged to be dead is indeed dead, and; (b) that, his death was because of an unlawful act (unnatural cause), (c) that the accused person was the one responsible for the death of the deceased; and Page 10 of 19 (d) that, before executing the act of murder the accused had an evil intent or malice aforethought. As I stated earlier, in this present case, the prosecution case relies on the testimonies of Pw-1, Pw-2, Pw-3, Pw-4 and Pw-5 together with Exh.P-1, Exh.P-2 and Exh.P-3. The first question to respond to, therefore is whether Masunga s/o Kashinje @Tungu is dead. A response to the above'question is entirely dependent on whether the circumstantial evidence jelied upon by the prosecution meets the standard\set~injhe^case of Didas s/o Siria (supra). \\\ In his testimony, Pw-1 testified about the disappearance ■- of Masunga s/o Kashinje @TungCi in'the Village of Kabage, a fact which raised the eyebrows of many as his whereabouts was unknown. It was not,,however;, established when last was the said Masunga s/o^ashinjye seen alive. What Pw-1 told this court was that in May ^OZ^people were on a fix regarding his whereabouts^^!™! thei^sftuation was made complex when his wife (who isthe accused) also disappeared from the sight of the Kabage Villagers shortly afterwards and for no apparent reasons, fl ‘ a fact which prompted the Village leadership to report their concerns to the Police at Kibo Police Station in Tanganyika 1 District as per the testimony of Pw-2. But do such concerns and conduct of the accused satisfactorily respond to the question raised hereabove? The testimonies of Pw-1 and Pw-2 do establish that the accused person was arrested while at Mpimbwe Sumbawanga, a fact which even the accused person admits. The testimonies of Pw-1, Page 11 of 19 Pw-2, Pw-3 and Pw-5 do also agree to the fact that an exhumation exercise of remains of an adult male human being was carried out at a place, not far from the accused's compound. It is worth noting, however, that, although Pw-1, Pw-2. Pw-3 and Pw-5 testified that it was the accused person who showed them the burial site from which human remains were exhumed, and even if the accused does not dispute that such human remains were indeed exhumed from that'7 place, .the accused person has made a clear denial of the alleged .’facpthat she was the one who showed the Police vmere^the/remains thought to be of the deceased Masunga s/o^Kashinje @Tungu were exhumed. _.. ? But even if that fact woiild ^aye been otherwise, if the ■ X" first question is to be establishedxbeyond reasonable doubt, still there is more that needed to,.bexdoneto establish that what was (( V exhumed was indeed the remains of the body of Masunga s/o Kashinje @Tungu. What should have been brought to the scene to clear the^’^ibts a DNA test Report of the remains taken to the Governmert~CKemist for testing. However, as per the testimony^ Pw^ no positive DNA response was obtained from the^sq^iples taken to the Chief Government Chemist for testing, on the ground that such samples were insufficient. According to Pw-5 the samples were those of the human remains found buried near the accused person's compound arid those obtained from Petero s/o Masunga, a son to the presumed deceased Masunga s/o Kashinje @Tungu. It is doubtful, however, if the alleged samples were ever taken to the Chief Government Chemist (hereafter referred to as Page 12 of 19 CGC) given that, neither was there any evidence, be it of a letter presenting such alleged samples to the CGC nor the response from the CGS was tendered in court by the prosecution side. In the absence of such proof, it becomes difficult to believe that any sample was taken to the CGC for DNA testing. But be that as it may, even if there was a response which was obtained from the CGC showing no substantive results regarding the DNA correlations between the human remains exhumed from their burial site and Masunga's son '('ReterpZzs/o Masunga), a second test ought to have beenrearried out given the gravity of the offence which the accused\p£rso1i is facing. The averment made by Pw-5 th^Petero_s/_o^Masunga could no longer be found is unacceptable, given that, it was the duty of the investigators of the crime to>ensure that no stone is left unturned. In essence, a^failuce^n the part of the investigators to carry our exhaustive investigation including obtaining a second DNA tests gives room for doubt or loopholes that permit the accused ^e^sorfyto enjoy the benefits of doubts. The room for doubt becomes wi’der given that the accused has all through mair^ine^\tharher husband left to Songea, meaning that she beli^ygsh^/is still alive. Who should now prove her wrong and by what evidence? In his closing submission, Mr. Muhangwa, the learned State Attorney for the Republic argued that although nobody witnessed the killing of Masunga s/o Kashinje @Tungu, based on the case of Leonard Mpoma vs. Republic [1978] L.R.T 58, it was held that "death may be proved by circumstantial evidence even without the production of the dead body of the alleged Page 13 of 19 deceased persori'. He contended that, the surrounding circumstances in this case irresistibly lead to a conclusion that the deceased Masunga s/o Kashinje @ Tungu was killed as the retrieved skeletal remains could not have buried themselves at the point where they were exhumed. He contended further that, at first the accused told lies to the villagers that her husband went to Songea to look for farms but later she disappeared from the Village until her subsequent arrest at Msila Mpimbwe village on the 1st of November 2021.He added, as a fourth pojnt that it was the accused who led the police officers 'ancir^some/'^llagers to the scene of crime where the remain^ of tti'eaeceased were exhumed, and that Pw-1, Pw-2 and. Pwt3 were not cross­ examined on that fact, meaning' that^jtwas admitted, citing to the case of Goodluck Kyando^ys??RepubIic, Crim. Appeal No.118 of 2003 (unrepofted).toCsupp^rt his position. Despite such1 a wociferqus submission, this court is less convinced that suclxevidehce^would be sufficient. As I pointed out earlieryhereabove, the accused person is to be convicted on the strength\xrfthe prosecution evidence and not on the weaimess'^of her defence or inability to defend herself, or becau§eof$ies which she might have stated. See the case of Selemani Makumba vs. Republic (supra). Besides, the accused was very adamant that she never led anybody to the place where the human remains were exhumed. But be that as it may, even if Pw-1, Pw-2 and Pw-3 were not cross-examined regarding their averments that it was the accused who led them to the point where remains of a human being were exhumed, was it proved beyond doubt that the Page 14 of 19 remains were of Masunga s/o Kashinje @Tungu? In his testimony, Pw-3 did not as well tell this court whether the remains were fresh or not or what could have been the duration of their burial and the state of decay. Notwithstanding such lapses, in my view, the most critical deficit in the prosecution case was the lack of DNA evidence which would have connected the human remains exhumed from the burial site to the alleged deceased Masunga sJo(Kashinj,e @ Tungu. That, in my view, was a critical failure since, generally in the absence of DNA test results, the questionAwhetherJMasunga /y s/o Kashinje @Tungu is dead or alive y/as not'and could not be resolved beyond reasonable doubts.. As a^matter of principle, —!—■—" therefore, where the circumstantes of a case would have made it imperative that the ojxjsecution^should have secured the evidence of DNA and failedtt^do^so, the accused or opposite fl V party to the case is<entitled to the benefits of doubt. The importancexof relying on DNA proof to dispel dangling ''w clouds of doubtywas aptly observed by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania^r$T!ie~sIe Cristopher Kandidius @ Albino vs Republic^CGrimi^l Appeal No. 394 of 2015) [2016] TZCA 196 (20^£emb^r 2016), to the effect that DNA test can, and should fill the evidential gaps. This was the appropriate case where such a gap could have been peremptorily filled by DNA evidence given that the evidence relied on by the prosecution side was largely circumstantial in nature. In. the case of Samwel Marwa@Oganga vs. Republic, Crim. Appeal No.74 of 2023 (CAT) (Mwanza) (unreported), a case which Mr. Muhangwa has relied on to support his submission, the Court made it clear that, Page 15 of 19 to be able to pin liability to an accused person on the basis of circumstantial evidence, such evidence must irresistibly lead to only none but a singular conclusion. In the case of Didas s/o Saria (supra) for instance, the prosecution witnesses (Pw-1 and Pw-3) had testified to the court that the accused person was the last person seen to be with the deceased and that he was the one who led witnesses to the place where the deceased's body was discovered^ But in^ his testimony, the accused had denied having led such witnesses." In that case, Pw-5 had told the trial court that wherthe^went to the scene of crime he found among othej^things,v.two underpants, one being female wear and the other,bejngiamiale wear. But Pw- 1, Pw-3 and Pw-6 claimed^/^therwjse that only a female underpant was found at the>scene\ Because the Court wasJnvitea to consider whether there R V had been sufficient? proof of the offence, the learned advocate for the appellant made avociferous submission to the effect that, the j^ere^ossiMify" that a male underpant was found at the scene ofsmme^without evidence to link the appellant with thatmale tinderpant, could not be a basis for conclusion that no f\ v ■ persoqothpr than the appellant could have killed the deceased or that the male underpant could have belonged to another person who killed the deceased. The Court acknowledged that such was a powerful submission and observed that: "in the absence of evidence to link the appellant with the male underpant which P.W.5 claims to have found at the scene of crime, the reasonable probability that the Page 16 of 19 deceased was kined’ by a person other than the appellant cannot reasonably be excluded." In the same vein, an analogy may be drawn from the above regarding the absence of DNA test results that established beyond reasonable doubt that the human remains found interred at the nearby compound at the accused's homestead were those of her husband Masunga s/o Kashinje @ Tungu. In view of that, given the failure on the part of the prosecution to^proVe thattthe remains unearthed near the accused person's\compound^were of \V’>7y no other person but Masunga s/o Kashinje @.\Tungu, it follows that, even if the second question regarding" whether the deceased died of unnatural cause^wii^receivS'a positive response owing to the expert opinion givensby Pw/3’ and based on Exh.P- 1, that response will berclivoid’ofVelevance to the fact in issue, i.e., the death of one Masunga s/o Kashinje @ Tungu. I hold that^yieiA/7ijecause, already the circumstantial evidence relie'chtipon tb^pfove that the human remains exhumed from the 'sfte^wnere^tlfey were found interred was still capable of alterhaB^e(explhrrations as reasonable hypothesis that they were of ^e deceased Masunga since there was no DNA test which proved-fhat the human remains were of the person alleged to have been killed under the instructions of the accused person. As it was stated authoritatively in the case of Didas Saria (supra) circumstantial evidence must lead to only one conclusion but where such is susceptible to a myriad of other reasonable possibilities such will excludes the certainty which is required to justify a verdict of guilt. Page 17 of 19 But aside from the above considerations, could the testimony of Pw-4 and the caution statement of the accused person which she recorded and tendered in evidence as Exh.P-2 dispel the myth regarding whose remains of the dead person were? This is yet another important question to consider as caution statement of an accused person could be an important piece of evidence provided that all necessary precautions regarding its recording were observed. £ As regards this case, first, I should state that rriw^has^this court received the caution statement of the accused-as_Exh.P-2, the manner in which the caution statement is 'recorded warrant "X \V that I should not take it into account J . atsalU-I -- r < hold it to so,' ‘ ■■ 1 ~ because Exh.P-2 was recorded in<the form of question and answer as one would in,an i^terj/iew^In the case of Seko Samwel vs. Republic,371, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held a vievrthat a statement recorded in the form of a question and answer instead of leaving the accused to tell or narrate his/hePstory didxiot qualify as a caution statement as it would not beJn compliant with the provisions of section 58 of the'^CHmi^ISProcedure Code. For that reason, I will not consider ExmP-2 as'caution statement worth looking at. In the absence of any meaningful evidential weight on Exh.P-2 and considering that the rest of the evidence led by the prosecution was largely circumstantial and fails to meet the required tests for circumstantial evidence, it is my finding that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where the prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt the accused person cannot be found guilty of Page 18 of 19 the offence charged but should forthwith be acquitted of his/her charges and be set free forthwith unless there are other reasonable grounds which she, should be kept in remand custody. In the upshot of all that, the accused Limi d/o Shija Igembe is not found guilty of the charges and hereby acquitted of the offence which she was charged with and set free forthwith unless detained therein for some other lawful caused « It is so ordered, \\ Right of Appeal Full Explained. ^ DATED AT SUMBAWANGA ON_THISJJ2th DAY OF JULY Xv------- Page 19 of 19