katindaaa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IRINGA SUB-REGISTRY AT IRINGA CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 7283 OF 2024 THE REPUBLIC .................................................. PROSECUTION VERSUS FRAIKO MARCUS KATINDASA…………………………….ACCUSED RULING ON SENTENCE Date of Ruling: 10/6/2024 LALTAIKA, J. The prosecution story leading to the instant matter is that on the 17th day of October 2023 the accused (now convict) FRAIKO MARCUS KATINDASA unlawfully killed ALFRED KIKOTI (the deceased) at Kidabaga Village within Kilolo District in Iringa Region On the fateful day, the accused and the deceased were living in the same house. The accused was a casual labourer “kibarua” of the deceased as a gardener and charcoal producer. After working for about a month, the deceased was supposed to pay TZS 75,000/=, as per their agreement. However, the deceased did not honor his part of the promise. A conflict ensued and they quarreled. In the course of the fracas, the deceased picked a panga that belonged Page 1 of 7 to the deceased and cut him on different parts of his body. Thereafter, the accused left to his home village of Lulanzi. On 19/10/2023, the deceased’s wife one Happy Myenda who was living in a different house from that of the deceased, along with other members of the village went to the deceased’s house. They found the house in unusual manner. It was locked with a locker (kofuli) on the outside. They could also sense a foul smell oozing from the house. They broke the door and got into the house where they found the body of the deceased in the bedroom. It bore injuries on different parts of the body especially on the head. The news was reported to the Kitongoji and Village leaders who proceeded to the scene of crime. Having seen what had happened, they reported the matter to the police. The police officers arrived in the scene of crime. The accused was arrested and taken to the police station where he was interrogated. He confessed having committed the offence. He was taken to the Justice of Peace where he also confessed. The body of the deceased was examined by one Dr. Jane Ndunguru and a postmortem examination report indicated that the cause of death was SEVERE BLEEDING or hypovolemic shock due to acute anemia (multiple cut wounds on Page 2 of 7 the head.) It is noteworthy that the state had provided legal assistance to the accused though Mr. Cleopas Mheluka, learned Advocate. This means, among other things, that the plea of guilty was based on sound legal advice (See Adan v. R. [1973] EA 445). The Republic, on the other hand, had entrusted prosecutorial function to Mr. Sauli Makori, learned State Attorney. No sooner had this court entered conviction than the learned State Attorney and the learned Defence Counsel submitted on aggravating and mitigating factors respectively. Mr. Makori stated that despite the accused having no prior record, his actions blatantly violated both religious principles and the Tanzanian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life for all individuals. Mr. Makori emphasized that the convict’s decision to take the law into his own hands was in direct contravention of the nation's legal frameworks governing conflict resolution. He argued that, even if the convict's debts were legitimate, there were lawful means available to pursue payment rather than resorting to lethal measures. Mr. Makori highlighted the negative precedent set by the convict's actions, which could potentially encourage others to similarly bypass the legal system. He Page 3 of 7 urged the court to impose a stringent penalty as a deterrent to the community, stressing that the excessive force used by the convict resulted in the loss of a life. He stressed that the deceased left behind a family, including two children who depended on him, and his untimely death inflicted immense pain on his family, friends, and relatives. Mr. Makori concluded by praying for a severe punishment for the convict, not only as retribution but also as a strong message to the wider society. Advocate Mheluka, on his part, presented a series of mitigation factors on behalf of the convict to the court, appealing for mercy. He began by highlighting that the convict is a first offender, a fact acknowledged by the Republic, which means he has no prior criminal record. He further noted that the convict had been in remand custody for nearly nine months since his arrest, demonstrating the substantial time already served. Mr. Mheluka emphasized the convict's remorse for his actions. He explained the circumstances of the offence, stating that the convict had completed the tasks assigned to him by the deceased faithfully. However, when the deceased refused to pay him, asserting there was no written contract and implying the convict should not expect payment, the convict became provoked. In a moment of Page 4 of 7 uncontrollable anger, he injured the deceased. It was clear, according to Advocate Mheluka, that the convict did not premeditate the action and used a weapon that belonged to the deceased and was present at the scene. Further, Advocate Mheluka pointed out that the convict confessed immediately after his arrest, to the police, before the justice of the peace, and in court by pleading guilty to manslaughter. This confession saved resources that would have been used to pay witnesses and spared time, demonstrating his remorse. He also mentioned that during their conversation that day, the convict appeared very remorseful. Referring to the Sentencing Guidelines 2023, Advocate Mheluka argued that the incident falls under item (a) of low-level manslaughter, as the convict did not plan or prepare for the offence but acted in the heat of passion. He concluded by praying for the court to consider reducing the sentence and applying section 138. I have considered both aggravating and mitigating factors. There is no doubt that the accused person’s act of attacking his employer in his room by a panga was gruesome and inhuman. The kind of weapon used such as a knife and a panga can tell level of cruelty of a person. In the case of Moses Mungasian Laizer Page 5 of 7 @Chichi [1994] T.L.R. 223 the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in substituting conviction and sentence for murder with that of the lesser offence of manslaughter had the following to say on sentence: “As for the sentence to be imposed the appelant used a knife for kiling the deceased. The use of a knife in a fight is always a teling factor against an accused person. (Emphasis added) I would substitute the word knife for a machete or panga without losing the feeling of the apex Court. Guided by the Tanzania Sentencing Manual (see p. 55), it is my considered view that the offence is High Level Manslaughter. The starting point as recommended in the Sentencing Manual is 10 years. The Sentence Range is life imprisonment to 10 years. I would start the count at 10. Nevertheless, as pleaded by the learned defence counsel, I proceed to reduce the 5 years for pleading guilty, time already spent in custody and remorsefulness as mitigated. In the upshot, I hereby sentence FRAIKO MARCUS KATINDASA to a five (5) years’ imprisonment term. It is so ordered. E.I. LALTAIKA JUDGE 10/06/2024 Page 6 of 7 Court: This ruling is delivered under my hand and the seal of this court on this 10th day of June 2024 in the presence of Mr. Sauli Makori, learned State Attorney, Mr. Leonard Mheluka, learned defence counsel and the convict. E.I. LALTAIKA JUDGE 10/06/2024 Page 7 of 7