Republic vs George Menson Sanga edited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (IRINGA SUB REGISTRY) AT NJOMBE. CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 5236 OF 2024 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS GEORGE S/O MENSON @ SANGA .................. 1st ACCUSED GOODLUCK S/O OYGEN @ MFUSE ....................... 2nd ACCUSED OPTATUS S/O ELIAS NKWERA .......................... 3RD ACCUSED JUDGMENT 0&'': & 315t December, 2024 NDUNGURU, J.- The accused persons George s/o Menson Sanga, Goodluck s/o Oygen Mfuse and Optatus s/o Elias Nkwera are charged with the offence of murder contrary to section 196 and 197 of the Penal Code (Cap. 16 R.E 2022). It is stated in the particulars of offence that on 19th day of September, 2020 at Kibena Estate within the District arid Region of Njombe, jointly and together with malice aforethought the accused persons did cause the death of one Emmanuel s/o Polycap Mlelwa. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the offence. The brief facts of the case as can be gathered from the preliminary hearing are that; on material date at about 23.00 hours, the deceased was with one Thadei Walter Mwanyika at TALE Bar area having talks. That i having completed their talks they got out escorting each other. That while walking the two were kidnapped by the accused persons. They were forced to enter into the motor vehicle with registration No. T. 457 DAB make Toyota Gaia the property of the first accused person. That having entered the: said vehicle, the two were subjected to severe torture by the accused persons on the reason that they were in a dirty plot to buy CHADEMA candidates vying for Ward councillors' posts during the 2020 General Elections. That with the two hijacked, the motor vehicle was driven to the scene while torture continued. Later the accused person strangled the deceased to death. The deceased body was thrown into a nearly pond around Mtege Bridge. Having accomplished their mission, the accused persons with Thadei Mwanyika left the scene. The deceased body was discovered floating into water on 21st day of September, 2020 by one Lufingo Mtweve, a pedestrian who was passing-by from collecting fire woods. He reported the matter to the local authority leader. Later, the matter was reported to the Police Station. The police arrived at the scene, the body was picked and sent to the hospital for further investigation. The 2 accused persons were arrested on different dates and occasions and arraigned for the murder offence. During preliminary hearing, what were undisputed were the names of the accused persons, their occupations, age, tribe, place of residence, the 1st and 2nd accused to belong to CHADEMA Political Party and their arrest. When the case was called for hearing, the charge was reminded to the accused persons. All maintained their plea of hot guilty. Ms. Cecilia Mkonongo Principal State Attorney assisted by Genes Tesha, Tito Mwakalinga and El Ise James the learned State: Attorneys appeared for Republic, whereas the 1st accused person enjoyed the service of Mr. Innocent Kibadu, the 2nd accused was represented by Mr. Frank Ngafumika and the 3rd accused enjoyed services of Ms. Msafiri and Mr. Matata the learned counsel. When the attorneys were consulted by the court on whether the case be tried by the aid of Assessors they unanimously were of the view that the trial to be conducted without the aid of the assessors and the court took the same lane. in proving the charge laid against the accused persons, prosecution summoned fourteen (14) witnesses and tendered documentary and non­ 3 documentary exhibits. On the other hand, the 1st accused gave evidence on his own behalf and called two Witnesses whereas the 2nd and 3rd accused gave evidence on their own behalf. The defence side had only one (documentary) exhibit. Lufingo John Mtweve testified as PW1. His testimony was to the effect that; he is dealing with selling fire woods. He is living at Kibena area in Njombe. He told the court that on 21st day of September 2020 at about 13:00 hours he was collecting fire woods at Bwawani owned by TANWAT. That on the way while crossing the bridge that carries water from the dam constructed by TANWAT he saw a motor vehicle parked aside the bridge. The two young men stood beside called him while wondering something like a human body beneath the bridge. Indeed, PW1 said he saw a human body under the bridge. He reported the matter to the ten cell leader then he went to Kibena police to report the matter. That the police from Njombe police station arrived at Kibena police at about 15:00 hours and took him to the scene. That the body was taken out from water underneath the bridge. The body was sent to the hospital while he went to the police station to pick his bicycle. Robert Kinyamagoha testified as PW2. His testimony was to the effect that; he is a medical doctor stationed at Kibena hospital. He has 4 eleven years of experience as medical doctor. He told the court that on 26th day of September, 2020 at about 16.00 hours he was at the hospital in his office. That he was assigned to conduct post mortem. That he went to the mortuary with policemen and two relatives of the deceased namely Silvanus Msigwa and Polycarp Mlelwa. The two identified the deceased body being Emmanuel Polycarp Mlelwa. PW2 told the court that as he examined the deceased body, it had injuries and loose neck meaning it was broken. He further said, the injuries were visible at the backbone. The neck bones were also broken. The witness said according to his investigation, the cause of death was due to "high spinal code injury and failure to breath due to diaphragm paralysis". He went on testifying that the deceased died and was brought to the mortuary six days ago. This witness tendered post mortem Report as Exhibit Pl. PW3 was Polycarp Anthony Mlelwa. His evidence was to the effect that; he is living at Luvuyo village in Ludewa District. The deceased is his biological son. That on 26/9/2020 he was at his home village. At about 09:00 to 10:00 hours he received a call from one Ezekiel Mgaya who informed him that Emmanuel Mlelwa is dead and his body is at Kibena hospital. At about 12:00 hours he was informed by one Silvanus Msigwa that he was needed at Njombe police station. The witness said he left for 5 Njombe police station and arrived at about 15.00 hours. That himself, Silvanus and police went to Kibena hospital. They went direct to the mortuary where they met the doctor. That he identified the body being that of Emmanuel Mlelwa. Then, the doctor conducted examination and after examination he was told that the cause of death was due to lack of oxygen caused by broken neck. That the doctor showed the way the neck was not stiff. G.9783 Detective CopIo Mrisho testified as PW4. His testimony was to the effect that he is a Police officer working in the office of RCO Njombe since 2017. That on 26/9/2020 he was on his daily duties. That RCO phoned Thadei Mwanyika to come to the office. Thadei arrived at the office of RCO at about 11.00 hours. That Thadei met RCO in his presence. PW4 went on testifying that RCO asked Thadei his routine on 19/9/2020. Thadei explained saying he was on his daily activities at Utalingolo area and in the evening at about 16.00 hours he attended CHADE.MA meeting at Compassion School Conference Hall. He then left for Nzengelendete to his brother where he attended the night. PW4 said RCO instructed him to go to search the house where Thadei attended the night on that date. He said he could not conduct search as Thadei sent them to different houses of his relatives who denied Thadei to have attended night on the material date. 6 He said they then returned to the office. That while at the office, Thadei told him that he attended night at Ramadhani in the house of George Sanga but he did not go to the home of George Sanga because it was during the campaign time. PW4 testified further that on the same date at about 18.00 hours while at the police station there went Rose Mayemba, George Sanga and Emmanuel Masonga. RCO ordered their detention and confiscation of their phones. He said George Sanga was taken to the office of RCO. That as he was interviewed on the death of Emmanuel Mlelwa, George distanced himself. That Thadei was brought before George and narrated what transpired. Thadei said that the deceased was bothering him asking him to stop contesting for councillor's post for Utalingolo Ward through CHADEMA and join CCM. That he reported the matter to the leaders including the 1st accused. Having reported he was told to trace the deceased's whereabouts. That as he traced the deceased on that evening, the deceased told him that he is at FM hotel. PW4 said Thadei narrated that he was instructed to lead the deceased to a "Car wash" located behind FM hotel. That as they stood there, a car came and picked them. That he and the deceased were beaten to the extent that the deceased died. He said on that account, the 1st accused admitted saying "ni kweli tumefanya hivyo". 7 He said the 1st accused having admitted, he named Ashery Machela, Optatus Nkwera and one XB whom he knew through Ashery. PW4 went further testifying to the effect that on 27/9/2020 at about 17.00 hours, Optatus being arrested was interviewed by RCO in his presence. He said Optatus admitted to have been involved in killing the deceased. When he was asked about XB, he said it is Goodluck Mfuse (,2rtd accused). He said, he together with DC Haruna and Inspector Mapuga went to arrest him. Fidelis Charles Bugoye testified as PW5. His testimony was that he is a Chemist working in DIMA department in the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority in Dar es Salaam. He is a gazetted officer through Gl\l. No. 28/2018. That his duties among others are; to receive samples, supervise, investigate and supervise investigation of DNA, poison and narcotic drugs. He said that on 02/10/2020 While in the office he received Detective Coplo Isaya who had a letter requesting for DNA test. That the letter originated from Police Forensic Bureau Dar es Salaam. The request letter was accompanied with the letter from the office of OC CID Njombe and PF. 180. That he also received eight envelopes each had swabs containing samples. That the envelopes were marked A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. The witness said the envelop "A" was a swab written "mpanguso wa damu kutoka kwenye Tshirt ya CH ADEM A ya George Menson Sanga''. "B" was: 8 swab written "mpanguso wa damu kutoka kwenye mwili wa marehemu Emmanuel Mlelwa". "C" was written "mpanguso wa damu kutoka kwenye kitambaa alichokutwa nacho Goodluck Mfuse". "D" was written "mpanguso wa kinywa kutoka kwa George Menson Sanga". "E" was written "mpanguso wa kinywa kutoka kwa Thadei Mwanyika". "F" was written "Mpanguso wa kinywa kutoka kwa Optatus Nkwera" "G" was written "mpanguso wa kinywa kutoka kwa Goodluck Mfuse" and "H" was written "mpanguso kutoka kwenye kola ya Tshirt ya George Menson Sanga". That he inspected and was satisfied that the exhibits description matched with the contents. PW5 went on telling the court that having received samples he went to the Laboratory to start investigation processes by informing the Laboratory director who examined the exhibits and permitted investigation to commence. He said first in his investigation he wanted to confirm whether the alleged blood was human blood. He confirmed that the alleged blood was real human blood. He then went on investigating on DNA. The witness explained all investigation processes he undertook for identifying similarities and differences in persons' DNA. He said in comparing samples the concentration is the similarity of the fifteen loci to determine if they are from the same origin. The witness went on testifying that having made forensic investigation he found that; exhibit A which was blood swab from 9 CHADEMAT- shirt of George Sanga matched with the DNA profile in exhibit B which was blood swab from the deceased Emmanuel Mlelwa. That DNA profile from exhibit B matched with the DNA from exhibit C which was a swab from "kitambaa" found to Goodluck Mfuse. The DNA profile from exhibit A, a swab from blood on a T-shirt of CHADEMA of George Henson Sanga matched with the DNA profile in exhibit C which is a swab from 'Kitambaa' recovered from Goodluck Mfuse. The DNA profile in exhibits D, E, F and G each was independent of the rest of exhibits. The DNA profile from exhibit D mpanguso wa kinywa wa George Menson Sanga matched the DNA profile from exhibit H mpanguso wa kola ya T- shirt ya George Menson Sanga. It is the DNA profile of the male gender in exhibit H which matched exhibit D. PW5 told the court that from the findings he made a conclusion that; the chances of DNA profile from exhibit A not to relate with DNA profile in exhibit B is one in a billion. The chances of DNA profile from exhibit B, blood swab from the body of the deceased Emmanuel Mlelwa not relating with DNA profile in exhibit C, the blood swab from ’kitambaa' found to Goodluck Mfuse is one in a billion. The chances of DNA profile in exhibit A not relating to DNA profile in exhibit C is one in a billion. The chances of DNA profile in exhibit D not relating to DNA profile in exhibit H of a male 10 gender is one in a billion. The chances of the DNA profile from exhibits E, F and G relating to DNA profile in exhibit H of a male gender is one in billion. He then prepared the report. That he completed it on 8/10/2020. The report was signed by him and the director who approved it. He stamped it and D/ Coplo Isaya went to collect it. He said later on, on 15/2/2024, the police submitted the request to be supplied with the copy as the original was lost. That the police attached the loss report. That the request was accompanied with the letter from the office of OC CID Njombe. G. 8387 D/Coplo Angelo testified as PW6. His testimony is to the effect that he is a Police Officer working at Njombe. He has been at Njombe police since 2019. He is an investigator. That on 21/09/2020 having received information on the presence of a dead body at the dam at Kibena, he with OCCID and other police visited the scene. That they passed at Kibena Police Post to pick the informant. The dam which is owned by TAN WATT. At the dam these was a wooden bridge which forms part of the dam. That underneath they found the dead body. When picked from the water the body had no shirt, it had a pair of trousers and leather shoe. The body was taken to Kibena Hospital. He drew the sketch map while assisted by PW1. He went on testifying that on 27/09/2020 he was ii assigned to conduct search to the house of the 1st accused (George- Menson Sanga). He said he: prepared document for search. He went with the 1st accused to his home. That on arrival he summoned the Street Executive Officer one Godfrey Mgaya to witness search. That during search he recovered two T-shirts the uniforms of CHADEMA. He said one of the T- shirts had blood drops, one tooth brush, blue in colour, two khaki trousers one being torn on the back, one CHADEMA election Agency Form for Optatus Nkwera, one combat shirt for CHADEMA claimed to belong to Masonga. The witness went on telling the court that as he had information that the car was used in commission of the crime. He also searched the car T. 456 DAB Toyota Gaia where he recovered one trousers belt pale in colour "damu ya mzee" in the boot. That he then completed the seizure certificate which was signed by Goodluck Mbembati and Geofrey Mgaya as independent witnesses that the 1st accused also signed. That the motor vehicle was also seized and taken to the police station. That at the police station he handed the exhibits to S. 8133 PC Judica the exhibit keeper, and the 1st accused was given a copy of seizure certificate. That he made two seizure certificates one for the items found in the house and another for what was found in the vehicle he later cancelled one and filled the items 12 found in the vehicle in the certificate of items found in the house. PW6 told the court that he realized that ASP Malongo who authorized search had signed at the space supposed to be signed by the officer who conducted search, on that he blanketed the sign of ASP Malongo and signed besides it. PW6 went on telling the court that on 27/09/2024 he was assigned to record cautioned statement of the 3rd accused person. He said in the statement the 3rd accused person admitted to have participated murdering the deceased and mentioned his fellow George Menson Sanga, Goodluck Mfuse and Ashery to have been involved. That on 29/09/2020 he drew the sketch map of the scene of crime under the di recti on/assi stance of the 1st accused. It is the 1st accused who led him with his fellow police to the scene. Having drawn the sketch map, he and the 1st accused person signed. That on the same date he collected exhibits handed to DC Judica and hand them to DC Hekima for forensic examination. That he took the exhibits for swabbing in the presence of the accused person and Thadei Mwanyika. PW6 went further saying that DC Hekima having taken samples and enveloped them in the envelopes marked A to G and handed them over to him who also handed to DC Isaya who came from the Police Forensic 13 Bureau Headquarters. Having taken samples, PW6 told the court that DC Hekima handed the exhibits to him and he returned to PC Judica for safe keeping. It was his further, testimony that he is the one who went to collect the DNA report at Dar es Salaam Headquarter Forensic Department. He said in the year 2024 in February when the report was needed for evidence in court he realized it to have been lost. That he reported the matter to OC-CID who reported to the headquarter (Forensic Bureau). The process of having the copy from Government Chemist was done when it was ready he went to Dar es Salaam to collect it. It is this witness who tendered seizure certificate (Exh. P3). The T-shirt with blood stains (Exh. P4) and the T-shirt with no blood stains (Exh. P5) khaki trouser torn at the back (Exh. P6), untorn khaki trouser (Exh. P7), Khaki shirt (combat) (Exh. P8), belt pale in colour (Exh. P9) tooth brush blue in colour (Exh. PIO), CHADEMA Agency - Form ya Uwakala (Exh. PH). The motor vehicle make Toyota Gaia registration No, T. 457 DAB silver in colour (Exh. Pl2). The sketch map (Exh. P13). PW7 was F, 3845 D/Sargent Bedom. His testimony was to the effect that he is a police officer stationed in the office of RCO. He is an investigator. That he is the one who arrested the 3rd accused person .14 (Optatus Nkwera). That he with his fellow policemen arrested the 3 rd accused at his home. He said having arrested him he informed him that he is suspected of murdering one Emmanuel Mlelwa. That he took the accused person to the police station. PW9 was one Geofrey Mgaya. His testimony was to the effect that he was a Village Executive Officer in 2020, then he was transferred to Ramadhani Street at Njombe Town where he worked as Street Executive Officer. He said on 27/09/2020 he was summoned to witness search at the home of George Menson Sanga. As he went there, he met the police in their vehicle, the policemen disembarked from the vehicle together with George Menson Sanga (the 1st accused). That before the police officer started search, they said to be searched but the 1st accused said it was not necessary. That the accused surrendered to one Angelo (Police) two CHADEMA T-shirts one had blood stains and the other was without. Apart from the T-shirts, three khaki trousers, a khaki combat shirt a tooth brush and form ya uwakala of Optatus Nkwera were seized. In the vehicle's boot they found one trousers belt "damn ya mzee" in colour. The witness said DC Angelo caused him to sign two seizure forms one was listed only the belt found in the vehicle's boot. The other form listed all the properties found in the vehicle and in the house. The witness said he together with is George and Goodluck Mbembati signed the forms after Angelo. He was then called to the police station for recording his statement. The witness identified the seized properties. Inspector John Mapuga testified as PW9. His testimony is to the effect that he was instructed to arrest the 2nd accused. That having arrested him on 27/09/2020 he sent him to the police station and handed him to DC Mrisho. He said further on 28/09/2020 he went to search the house/residence of the 2nd accused. That before he did anything he called a street chairperson one John Muhomisoli to witness. That before he commenced search, he was searched. The witness said during search he recovered one red handkerchief (kitambaa) with blood drops, two track suit trousers one in blue and other black in colour, one T-Shirt long sleeved V'kijivu" in colour and one track suit sweater with "udongo" colour. That he prepared the seizure certificate: which the street chairperson, the accused's wife and the accused himself signed. That at the police station he handed the exhibits seized to PC Judica, the exhibit keeper. PW9 tendered the seizure certificate as exhibit (Exh. P14), the said red handkerchief (kitambaa) (Exh. Pl5) the sweater (Exh. P16) the track suit trousers-black and blue (Exh. 17 collectively) and the T-shirt-long sleeved "kijivu" in colour (Exh. P18). 16 G. 5938 Forensic Coplo Hekima testified as PW10. His testimony was to the effect that; he is stationed at Regional Forensic Department at Njombe. That he is a gazetted officer for collecting samples for forensic investigation. He said on 21/09/2020 he was instructed to go to Kibena Hospital to collect sample for DNA test from the dead body of Emmanuel Mlelwa. He went to the hospital. At the mortuary he was shown the body of Emmanuel Mlelwa, which was lying at the washing dish. That he told the mortuary attendant to uncover it, it was uncovered the face. He entered the swab stick inside the nose and started to dust inside where he obtained blood. Then in the ear where he got blood as well, he dried the sample and kept in the envelop and labelled them by marking "B" That he kept the sample in a special cupboard used to keep DNA samples. That on 29/09/2020 he extracted sample from T-shirt, CHADEMA uniform which had blood stains which was said to belong to the 1st accused. He marked it ■'A" and the sample from "kitambaa" (handkerchief) which was said to belong to the 2nd accused, and marked it as "C". He took the DNA sample from the mouth (mpanguso) of the 1st accused and marked it as "D", the sample from Thadei Mwanyika marked "E", the sample from the 3rd accused marked "F" and the sample from the 2nd accused marked "G". 17 PW10 went on testifying that he further took the DNA sample from the CHADEMA T-Shirt suspected to be of the l5t accused and marked it as "H", he took the sample from the "kola" (collar) of the said CHADEMA T- Shirt to identify the owner. PW10 went on to say that he took the samples collected on 21/09/2020 which were marked B and that of 19/09/2020 and handed them to Detective Coplo Angelo. PW11 was PF.22381 Assistant Inspector Isa ya Bernard Kigula. His testimony was that he is a police officer working at the Forensic Police Bureau at the Headquarters Police at Dar es Salaam. That his daily duties among others are to investigate on DNA, receive DNA samples from different regions, register them and sent them to the Government Chemist for investigation. That on 28/09/2020 he travelled from Dar es Salaam to Njombe as he was assigned to join the team on collecting DNA samples related to the murder case. That he was with his fellow one Abdul. He said he reported at Njombe at the office of RCO on 29/09/2020 in the morning. At noon while in the Forensic office, he met Coplo Hekima continuing with the exercise of taking DNA samples to some suspects and from different exhibits. That having collected samples Coplo Hekima dispatched them in the envelops. Then later Coplo Angelo handed the 18 samples to him for sending to Dar es Salaam. That having satisfied them to be in tact he kept them ready for transporting. He left Njombe on 30/09/2020. On 01/10/2020 he could not send them to the Government Chemist as the authorizing office was absent. He sent them on 02/10/2020 at noon. He handed them to chemist one Fidelis Charles Kuboya. The witness testified further that on 08/10/2020 he collected the report and kept it in the forensic office. He informed Coplo Angelo to go to collect it. Whereby Coplo Angelo collected it on 10/10/2020. PW11 went on saying on early February, 2024 he was told by Coplo Angelo that the report was lost. He said he told him to write a letter with loss report to request the copy of the report. He said on 15/10/2020, Coplo Angelo went to Dar es Salaam with a letter requesting for a copy of the report. That PW11 said he then wrote a Tetter to the Government Chemist requesting for a copy which was collected on 16/02/2024. That on 17/02/2024 he went to collect it. H.8133 Coplo Judica testified as PW12. In his testimony he told the court that, he is a police and he is stationed at Njombe Police station. That he is an exhibits keeper. He said he keeps exhibits related with criminal cases. He said on 27/09/2020 he received from D/Coplo Angelo the exhibits for safe keeping. He said the exhibits he received were two CHEDEMA T-Shirts one with blood stains, two khaki trousers one was torn 19 at the back one trousers' belt with "damu ya mzee" colour, one khaki combat shirt, "Hati ya uwakala wa CHADEMA" and the vehicle T. 457 DAB make Toyota Gaia. He said having received the exhibits, he registered them with exhibit number 63/2020 of the case IR 2579/2020. That on 28/09/2020, he received from Insp. Mapuga two track suit trousers, black and blue, one T-Shirt with long sleeve gray "kijivu" in colour one track suit sweater "rangi ya udongo" one red "kitambaa" which had blood stains. That having received them he labelled them by the same IR and exhibit number as they are related to the same case. The witness went on testifying that on 29/09/2020 D/Coplo Angelo told him to give the exhibits he gave him on 27/09/2020 for investigation purpose, he gave him and later Angelo gave him back and he kept in the exhibit room. The witness testified further that from 03/07/2024 he had been sending to court the exhibits wherever they were required. The witness identified all the exhibits which were handed to him for custody. PW13- was one John Joshua Muhomisoli. His evidence was to the effect that as a Mtaa Chairperson he was called by the police officer one Mapunga to witness search in the house of the 2nd accused one Goodluck Mfuse. That while at the home of the 2nd accused, Mapuga told the accused to lead him to the room for search. PW13 said in the bedroom 2Q there was a cupboard used for keeping clothes. That Mapuga started to take out the clothes one after another. He met two track suit trousers one blue and the other black, one track suit sweater "rang! ya udongo", he also met red "kitambaa" (handkerchief) which had blood stains (drops) he also found grey T-Shirt with long sleeve. PW13 said Mapuga picked a form listed all the items and made him, the accused and his wife called Shani to sign it and Mapuga also signed it. The witness identified the seizure certificate he signed (Exh. P14) and also Identified all the items seized (Exh. Pl3, P14, Pl5, P16 and Pl7) said he then went to the police station to record his statement. PW14 was H.1913 Detective Coplo Peter. His evidence was to the effect that he is an investigator stationed at Njombe Police Station. That on 26/09/2020 at about 18:00 hours he was assigned to record cautioned statement of the 1st accused person. He said having informed the accused persons all his rights as stated in the standard form he then commenced to record his statement. PW14 told the court that the accused admitted to have been involved in murdering the deceased. He added that the accused told him the way he got information from Thadei Mwanyika on the dirty game the deceased was doing to persuade the: CHADEMA contestants to disqualify themselves so that the CCM candidates take opportunity. That he 21 then told him the way they planned to murder the deceased and the way they murdered him. PW14 went on telling the court that on 27/09/2020 he recorded additional cautioned statement of the 1st accused. The statement was on the search which was conducted. Further, on 19/09/2020 he recorded further additional statement on how the deceased led them to the scene of crime. PW14 went on further testifying that on February, 2024 he was called by RCO one Malongo who instructed him to revisit the cautioned statement of the accused. He said in the process he made some alterations. Following the objection, the statement was rendered inadmissible. That following the findings of the court that the accused had the case to answer as per section 293(2) of the CPA, the accused persons entered their defence. DW1 was one Goerge Menson Sanga. His testimony was to the effect that he was arrested on 26/09/2020 while at the police station where he with Emmanuel Masonga and Rose Mayemba went to inquire on the reason Thadei Mwanyika was under restraint. The witness said having been arrested, he was taken to Makambako Police Station while being beaten. St Makambako Police Station he was not interrogated. 22 The witness told the court that he came to know that he is facing murder charge on 20/09/2020 when he was taken back to Njombe and sent to the court, where he met his fellow accused persons. DW1 told the court to have never confessed before DC Mrisho (PW4) and DC Peter (PW14). That DC Peter never interrogated him on the killing of the deceased one Emmanuel Mlelwa. DW1 told the court that on 19/09/2020 he was at Ihanga Ward with Emmanuel Masonga. His vehicle was with his young brother as he was using the vehicle of Emmanuel Masonga. He said Thadei had no told him anything on his communication with Emmanuel Mlelwa (Deceased). He had never seen Thadei Mwanyika talking with DC Mrisho. That there is no evidence of the communication between Thadei Mwanyika and the deceased. That Thadei Mwanyika was among the accused but he was dropped:. That from the date he was arrested he met Masonga on 03/10/2020 when he visited him at the prison. DW1 told the court that on 27/09/2020 when the police went to search his home, he was coming from Makambako Police Station. From Makambako he was with Malongo, DC Mrisho Angelo Haruna who had a gun and other two policemen who he did not know their names. That it was Malongo who conducted search not DC Angelo. That in the search two 23 new CH ADEM A T-Shirts were taken. The witness said Angelo was among the police who had guns and he signed certificate as a witness, upon instruction from Malongo. DW1 went further testifying that no witness had tendered the alleged cautioned statement. He was not present when swabbing was done from the deceased body. That no DNA sample was taken from him (no swabbing was done to him). That he saw Coplo Hekima in court when testifying. He never even mentioned the rights he said to have given him when taking samples. That he was denied the right to have his lawyer before search commenced. Neither he did not tell the police who went to search him that there was no need for them to be searched first. He denied to have led DC Angelo to the scene to draw the sketch map. That he signed the map on 30/09/2020 when he was sent to court but he was not told what he was signing. DW2 was Goodluck Mbembati. His testimony was that he was living With the 1st accused and other fellow younger brothers. That on 19/09/2020 he was at Mtapa Village at Wanging'ombe. He said he left with the motor vehicle of the 1st accused 12/09/2020 and came back on 26/09/2020 at noon that when he left with the motor vehicle of the 1st 24 accused, the 1st accused was using the motor vehicle property of Emmanuel Masonga. DW2 went on telling the court that on 27/09/2020 when the 1st accused was searched, he was present. That before search the 1st accused told him to communicate with his lawyer but RCO (Malongo) denied. He further said during search in the house the police took two CHADEMA P Shirts. That before commencing search they requested the switch of the car which was outside saying they wanted to check if it has fuel. Mrisho took the key and went outside the gate he then came back and returned the key. When searched in the vehicle only trousers' belt was found and seized. That they were told to sign the document which was blank. At all the time the 1st accused was handcuffed. It was Malongo who conducted search. DW3 was Emmanuel Godfrey Masonga. His evidence was to the effect that on 19/09/2020 as it was during general election campaign he was at Njombe town with the 1st accused dealing with campaign issues. He went further saying, on 26/06/2020 at about 20:00 hours, he with the 1^ accused and Rose Mayemba went to the Police Station at Njombe for the purpose of knowing why Thadei Mwanyika was under arrest. Having arrived at the police station they were kept under police restraint while 25 their phones were seized. That he was released at about 07:00 hours. DW3 went on telling the court that on 27/09/2020 he went to the police to inquire about Thadei Mwanyika and the 1st accused but he was informed that they were not there. That on 30/09/2020 he was informed that the 1st accused and his fellows were sent to the District Court. That as he rushed to the court, he met the 1st accused being taken to the prison. Then he started visiting him in the prison. DW4 was Goodluck Mfuse. His testimony was that on 28/09/2020 at about 05:00 pm his home was searched. That during search two track suit trousers blue and black, one pullover (sweater) "rangi ya udongo" and one red handkerchief (kitambaa) were seized. That the said seized "kitambaa" was purely red. What was produced in court had other colours not purely red. That the "kitambaa" seized from him had no blood stains. That he, his wife's cousin and local leader were present. DW4 went on saying, after search he, Mapuga (police officer), local leader and Shani signed the seizure certificate (Exh. P14) in which all the seized properties were listed. He said in Exh. P14 among the listed items were "kitambaa kimoja cha kujifutia". That was item number 3. He said ever since the said "kitambaa" was seized he had not seen it anymore. That the "kitambaa" 26 produced in court is not his as it was not typical red. His "kitambaa" had no blood stains. That is what is written in the seizure certificate as well. DW5 was one Optatus Elias Nkwera. His testimony was to the effect that he was not involved in killing the deceased. He did not know the deceased. That he has never mentioned XB Mwakyusa nor 1st accused to have been involved. He further testified that DC Mrisho never recorded his statement. He prayed the court to find him innocent as all the prosecution testimony was a lie. That was the summary of the prosecution and defence case. The Attorneys preferred to file final submissions. In their submissions the prosecution invites the court to find the case against the accused has been proved to the required standard whereas the defence invites the court to find otherwise. The fact that their submissions are based on the evidence tendered in court, I find it prudent not to summarise it at this stage. But the submissions will be considered as I go along in this judgment. At this juncture, the main issue is whether the prosecution has successfully discharged the duty to prove the charge against the accused persons to the required standard. In other words; whether the prosecution has: proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The answer to the main issue will depend on the outcome of the following issues: 27 (i) Whether the person, one Emmanuel Mlelwa alleged to have died is actually dead, if yes. (ii) Whether his death was of unnatural cause; if in the affirmative (iii) Whether it is the accused persons George Menson Sanga, Goodluck Oygen Mfuse and Optatus Nkwera are responsible for the death of Emmanuel Mlelwa who is subject of this trial; if the answer is: in affirmative (iv) Whether their action was actuated with malice aforethought. Starting with the first sub issue above; from the evidence on record, it is not in dispute that Emmanuel Mlelwa who is subject of this trial is actually dead. The evidence of PW1 is very clear that on 21/09/2020 in daily dealing with fire wood for sale at TAN WATT dam found a human dead body. He reported the matter to the police station. The police officers among others were PW6 went to the scene and picked the body at Kibena hospital for further investigation. Though by then he did not know whose body it was but the body was identified by the father of the deceased (PW3) being the body of Emmanuel Mlelwa. This fact is supported by the testimony of PW2, the medical officer who conducted Post Mortem examination as he said the body was identified to him as being of 28 Emmanuel Mlelwa by his relatives, Silvanus Msigwa and Polycarp Mlelwa (PW3). As to whether the deceased faced unnatural death, the available evidence is that the deceased was found down the bridge underneath water. This is per the testimony of PW1 who saw the dead body at the first instance and PW6 who is among the police officers who rushed to the scene. Such evidence gives the impression that either the deceased fell himself into the water dam or faced: human act. But all in all it cannot be said to have been a natural death. But again, of more importance is the evidence of PW2, the medical officer who conducted post mortem examination (Exh. Pl). His testimony is that the cause of death Was due to "high spinal code injury and failure to breath due to diaphragm paralysis". From that piece of evidence, it is quite clear that the deceased faced untimely and violent death. The most contentious issue for determination for that matter is whether or not it is the accused persons who murdered the deceased. My scrutiny of evidence available on record, no prosecution witness had testified to have witnessed accused persons at the dock killing the deceased. It is my finding therefore that, the evidence before me is entirely 29 circumstantial. As correctly noticed; the prosecution is sought to prove the charge against the accused persons exclusively basing on circumstantial evidence as no one witnessed the killing. Admittedly; therefore, the prosecution evidence must be tested by the "touch - stone" of the law relating to circumstantial evidence. The burden of proof remains that of the prosecution to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The question is whether circumstantial evidence is admissible and can and the court ground conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. In Augustino Lodaru V. Republic [2014] TLR 45 (CAT) the Court held: "it is settled law that a court can enter conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. This is so where the said evidence irresistibly led to the inference that it was the appellant and nobody else who committed the offence. Such evidence must also, be incapable of more that interpretation and the chain Jinking such evidence must be unbroken " In Shaban Abdallah v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2003(unreported), it Was stated: "The law on circumstantial evidence is that it must irresistibly lead to the conclusion that is the accused and no one else who committed the crime" 30 See also Nkeshima John @ Diodone v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2005, Seif Seleman v Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2005(both unreported), Simon Musoke v The Republic [1958] EA715 and Tipper v Republic [1952] A.C 480 to mention but a few. Basing on the above case law it is settled that circumstantial evidence can ground conviction, but the standard of proof has not been diminished. It has remained the same that is beyond reasonable doubt. In insisting the standard of proof to remain that which is provided by the law, the Supreme Court of India in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 ALR 607 had this to say: "In a case based on circumstantial evidence the court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, however strong they may be to take place of proof". (See also SARKAR ON EVIDENCE, 15i!Ed p 65)." In Republic v. Kipkering Arap Koske and Kimure Arap Matatu (1949) 16 E. ALR 135 defunct East Africa Court of Appeal had this to say; 31 " That in order to justify on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilty, the exculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis that of his guilty, and the burden of proving facts which justify the drawing of this inference from the facts to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis of innocence is always on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused" In Ally Bakari and Pili Bakari V. Republic (1992) TLR 10 the Court of Appeal stated; "Where the evidence against the accused is wholly circumstantial, the fact from which an inference adverse to the accused is sought to be drawn must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must be clearly connected with the facts from which the inference is to be inferred" In addition, the learned author SARKAR ON EVIDENCE, 15th ED, 2004 page 66 - 18 pertinently observes; "Where circumstances are susceptible to two equally possible inferences, the inference favoring the accused rather than prosecution should be acceptable" 32 Being guided by the wisdom gained from the above cited authorities; the remaining pivotal question that must now be determined is whether or not the prosecution evidence has proved entire chain of circumstantial evidence to hold that it is the accused persons who murdered the deceased. In this case the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12, PW13 and PW14. It is trite law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, where a series of circumstances are dependent on one another they should be taken as one integrated whole and not considered separately, otherwise the very concept of proof by circumstantial evidence would be defeated. That position was elucidated in the case of Said Bakari V. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 422 of 2013, (unreported) where the court of Appeal held: ... In determining a case commented on circumstantial evidence, the proper approach by the trial court and appellate court is to critically consider and weight a/i the circumstance established by evidence in their totality and not to dissect and consider it piecemeal or in cubicles of evidence or circumstance" (emphasis added) 33 That said and being in mind the totality of the evidence the first of circumstances arising is contained in the evidence of PW4. In his testimony he said that on 26/9/2020 the 1st accused was interrogated by RCO at his presence and that during interrogation the l5t accused orally confessed to have killed the deceased. The witness has established the evidence of ora! confession. The witness told the court that the 1st accused person mentioned Ashery Machete, Optatus Nkwera and to be his co offenders. The term confession is defined by the law under section 3(1) (a), (b), (c) and; (d) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 6 R.E 2022 to mean words or conducts or combination of both or a statement containing an admission or affirmative declaration of a l l or substantial ingredients of the offence with which its maker is charged with and/or from which an inference may reasonably be drawn that its maker has committed an offence. Confession can be in written form before the police Officer or justice of peace or orally made before any reliable witness. Flowing from the above meaning of confession, oral confession is thus, admissible. See Posolo Wilson @ Mwalyengo v. Republic, (supra) where it was stated that: 34 "Ora! confession made by a suspect before or in the presence of a reliable witnesses, be they civilian or not, may be sufficient by itself to found con viction against the suspects." The test for admissibility of oral confession generated in Posolo Wilson @ Mwalyengo (supra) is on reliability of witnesses to whom the said oral confession was made by the suspect. To my view this is the reason why in John Peter Shayo and Two Others vs. R. (1998) TLR 198 it was held that: "As a genera! rule, oral confessions of guilty are admissible though they are to be received with great caution, and ss. 27(1) and 31 of the Evidence Act; 1967contemplates such confessions/' Oral confession like any other confession must pass the test of its voluntariness. Unlike in the cautioned statements where its voluntariness is tested by conducting trial within trial. The voluntariness of oral confession can be tested by looking at the credibility and reliability of the witness. See Posolo Wilson © Mwalyengo (supra) and that in John Peter Shayo and Two Others vs R. (supra). In the instant case PW4 told the court that it is RCO who interrogated the 1st accused. That means the accused person made such confession 35 before RCO. Not only that PW4 had stated that before interrogating the 1st accused one Thadei had narrated the whole story on how the mission was plotted and then the killing committed. That it was Thadei who mentioned the 1st accused. Further, that the accused confessed as Thadei was called before him to narrate the episode. That upon seeing Thadei, the 1st accused confessed his involvement while naming his co offenders. While PW4 says that DW1 was interrogated by RCO, to the contrary, DW1 in his defence told the court that he was not interrogated by any and he met the said Thadei at Makambako Police station. As stated earlier, voluntariness of oral confession can be tested by looking at the credibility and reliability of a witness, that can only be done by cross examining the witness before whom confession was made. In the case at hand neither the RCO before whom the alleged confession was made nor Thadei whom it is said he made the accused confess as he was aware of what was done, were not summoned to testify. Failure for them to be called to testify has left the said confession's credibility and reliability untested. To me the two were material witnesses. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution was required to call the respective witnesses to testify so as to give insight on the credibility and reliability of 36 the confession. Besides, no reason was given (particularly with RCO) as to why they were not called to testify. The omission with due respect, entitles this court to draw adverse inference. In Aziz Abdallah v. Republic (1991) TLR. 71 the CAT referred in Haji Bakari Hassan v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 2004(unreported) the CAT held among others that: '\iij)the genera! and well known rule is that the prosecutor is under prime facie duty to call those witnesses who, from their connection with transaction in question are able to testify on the material facts if such witnesses are within reach but are not called without sufficient reason being shown the court may draw an inference adverse to the prosecution" The rule on adverse inference was further reiterated in Sungura Athman v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2016(CAT unreported at page 8 where the Court stated: "Speaking of the rule in adverse inference, it is not quite the obligation of the prosecution to call a superfluity of witnesses, On the contrary, the prosecution is expected, as it is, for it always to be concerned with shortening trials. Thus, where a si particular case an incident is deposed by a large number of witnesses the non-featuring in court of some witnesses should not be taken as a cause of disbelieving the prosecution version. Nonetheless, the general and well -known rule is that the prosecution is underprima facie duty to call witnesses who, from their connection with transaction in question are within reach but are not called without sufficient reason being shown the court may draw an adverse inference to the prosecution"(emphasis added) I am thus settled in my mind that this is a fit case given the circumstances, which entitle this court to draw adverse inference against the prosecution and I accordingly do so. The result is to throw more doubt into the prosecution case which legally must be resolved in favour of the accused. See Shaban Mpanzu @ Elisha Mpanzu v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2002 and in Michael Godwin and Another v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 66 Of 2002 (both unreported). I am aware of the testimony of PW14. His testimony is that he recorded the 1st accused cautioned statement. He further said the accused confessed to have committed the offence and the motive of killing the deceased was due to the bad plot the deceased was playing to persuade 38 the candidate nominated by CHADEMA in councilors' election: to withdraw themselves so as to pave way for CCM candidates. Unfortunately, the statement was inadmissible. Thus his oral evidence cannot be relied upon to support the case and even where possible to use it to convict the accused. This is due to the reason that the evidential value and the weight of such document as evidence is heavier than oral testimony of the witness. After all evidence which need corroboration can be used to corroborate such evidence which need corroboration too because the accused has repudiated it. The rejected statement went away with the substantial amount of weight of the witness's evidence. The other piece of evidence which tends to connect the accused persons to the offence they are facing is that of PW5 who is a government chemist and the DNA report (Exh. P2). The fact that his evidence is based on the samples which were collected and submitted to his office for investigation, I find it prudent to deal with the way the samples were obtained before dealing with his testimony and the content of exhibit P2. The evidence available is that of PW6 who is the one who conducted search to the residence of DW1 (the 1st accused). The search which was witnessed by PW8. His evidence Was that in searching the residence of 39 DW1 among the Items found which are related with the case is one CHAD EMA T- shirt which had blood stains (Exh. P4). According to the evidence of PW12, the Exhibits keeper, among the exhibits he received from PW6 on 27/9/2020 was a CHAD EMA T -shirt with blood stains. The said T-shirt was taken later by PW6 for investigation and was later returned to him for keeping. Further, the testimony of PW10, the officer who collected sample, that among the exhibits given by PW6 for extracting DNA sample was a CHADEMA T- shirt which had blood stains. PW10 told the court that from the T shirt he took sample from the blood, which of course was intended to be compared with the sample taken from the deceased which to him was marked as 'B' in his sample arrangement. He also took sample from the collar of the said T-shirt to establish whose T shirt it was when comparing to the sample of mouth swab taken from DW1. But again those were among the samples which PW11 told the court to have been given by PW6 for sending to the Government Chemist for DNA investigation. Further to that as: to PW5, the Government chemist, those were among the samples he received, investigated (analyzed) and produced a report (Exh.P2). 40 The correctness, validity and legality of the report, will depend on the way sample was collected, packed, managed and transported. Of course that is the dictate of law. The Law on DIM A requires the collecting officer to give the accused some of the rights. This requirement is mandatory. It is provided under section 28 and 30 of The Human DNA Regulation Act, 2009. Section 14(3) of the Act and Regulation 19(l)(d) of the Human DNA(General) Regulations requires sampling officer to transport samples to the Government Chemist. In the case at hand the evidence is clear that it is PW11 who transported the samples. There is no plausible explanation to that effect. In this case the sampling officer did not tell the court if he complied with those requirements of law. In general, there is no proof of adequate documentation of collection, parking, storage and transportation: of all the samples as mandated by provisions of law. Section 34(5) of the Act directs that collection, packing, storage, transportation and receiving of the samples must comply with the regulations made under the Act. The evidence on record is that PW6 is the one who conducted search in the residence of the 1st accused; and among the seized items is the T Shirt alleged to have blood stains (Exh. P4) and he is the one who tendered 41 the certificate of seizure (Exh. P3). In his evidence in chief, PW6 never told the court the extent and in which part of the T-shirt blood stains/drops were. That was very important in describing the T-shirt before tendering it. The same was with PW8. When the witness was cross examined he told the court that the certificate of seizure is filled by two people. That it is signed by ASP Malongo. He said according to the certificate (Exh. P3), the 3rd witness is G.8387 DC Angelo who is himself. PW6 told the court that he was both a search officer and a witness. To me this is a new practice to be a search officer and at the same time to be a witness to the said search. The questions are what was it intended to serve and to what capacity was he testifying? The witness further said the first certificate was cancelled as it had errors. He completed/ filled the new one at the police station by the order of ASP Malongo. If that is what happened where did he get other witnesses who signed the certificates? Was it proper for the certificate to be completed at the police station instead of it being completed at the scene of search? Was the accused involved in completing the new certificate? These questions raise doubts as to the legality of the said search and the integrity of PW6. But the testimony of PW8, the witness of search told the court that he signed the two forms (certificates of seizure) at the scene. He went to the police station to record his statement only. 42 But again, the testimony of DW2 is to the effect that during search the two CHADEMA T-shirts seized were the new ones and were in the nylon paper. These rival statements; and the fact that the search certificate (Exh. P3) tendered in court is the one completed at the police station raises doubt as to the authenticity of the said document. The doubts which must at the end of the day benefit the accused person. As to the second accused, the evidence which implicates him is that of PW9. His evidence is to the effect that he conducted search at the 2nd accused's residence. That during search among the items seized was a red handkerchief - Exh. P15 (which in the whole proceedings has been referred as "kitambaa"). In his testimony PW9 told the court that the said kitambaa recovered during search had blood stains/drops. The same was the testimony of PW13, the independent witness who witnessed the search. It is the testimony of PW.9 and PW13 that after search, certificate of seizure (Exh. P14) was filled and both signed. PW9 signed as the officer who conducted search and PW13 as the local leader and independent witness who witnessed the search. PW12, the Exhibit keeper who told the court that on 28/9/2020 he received exhibits from PW9 for safe keeping. PW12 told the court that among the exhibits he received was a red 43 handkerchief (kitambaa chekundu) which had blood drops/stains. Further, according to PW10 among the exhibits presented to him for collecting DNA sample was red handkerchief (kitambaa chekundu}. That the sample extracted/collected from the said handkerchief was among the samples PW5 had investigated. That the said handkerchief implicated the 2nd accused as far as it was found in his possession and it had blood drops which were compared with the DNA sample collected from the deceased. According to the testimony of PW5, and exhibit P2, the two samples matched. There is no doubt that the house of the 2nd accused was searched by PW9. This is because PW13 told the court that he as a local leader witnessed the search and further the 2nd accused ascertained that he was searched. The issue is whether the said red handkerchief with blood drops was among the seized items. Though witnesses (PW9, PW10, PW12 and PW13) told the court that the said red handkerchief had blood drops, the Exhibit P14 (search order) in the listed items, item 3 is "kitambaa kimoja cha kujifutia chenye rangi chekundu ", The Search Order did not state that the said "kitambaa" had blood drops at all. The same is Exhibit 02 the statement of PW12, the exhibit keeper, that among the exhibits he 44 received from PW9 is "kitambaa kimoja cha rangi nyekundu". He never stated it to have blood drops/stains. The accused in his defence admits the fact that among the seized items was a red handkerchief. But it had no blood drops and was typical red in colour. He further told the court that the one tendered in court is not the one seized from him because it has blood and has mixed colors. I had ample time to observe the said "kitambaa" through my naked .eyes, it is the fact that the said "kitambaa" has mixed colours, with red being dominant but it has white flowers like so the description by the prosecution witnesses is different from the appearance of the said item. To me this contradiction goes to the root of the case because the offence investigated was murder, therefore, to find an item with blood was very essential as it could provide a good link between the person the item was found with and the offence of murder. In the circumstances it could be something very remarkable to be found in the certificate for seizure. I, therefore, find that the statement that the handkerchief had blood drops Was an afterthought coached by the witnesses. I am of the said view taking into account the answer of PW13 in cross examination when he was asked what is to be taken by the court either the oral statement that the 45 "kitambaa" had blood drops/stains or the search order which he also signed; his response was that the court should regard what is contained in the certificate of seizure. I agree with PW13 because the exhibit has passed through legal test of admissibility such that it should not suffer any threats of rejection or expungements, thus, its contents must be believed as it is and as what was revealed and seized at the field and be given weight that is why it was tendered the way it is. In that circumstance, it cannot be qualified by Oral evidence of the witnesses. Likewise, if it could have been rejected, then automatically follows that oral evidence of the witnesses who testified on search and who tendered it could have not been relied to support the case. All in all, and be it as it might, as noted earlier, the process of sample collection, packing, storage and transportation Of all samples was not done as the law dictates. FOr instance, the DNA sample from the deceased was collected way back on 21/09/2020 and was remitted to the government chemist for investigation on 2/10/2020, that is after twelve days from the date of collection. Though I am not an expert on that field, in the absence of the plausible explanation any reasonable person could have casted doubts as I do for it to give correct result. 46 I have considered all the circumstances constituting circumstantial evidence in this case, I have tested each link in the chain carefully at the end I am with due respect convinced that the evidence does not lead to irresistible conclusion of the accused persons" guilt. As the result the whole chain is rejected. See Samson Daniel vs Republic (1934) E.A.C.A 154 Having said and done, I am of the firm view that the issue as to whether it is the accused persons on the dock who are responsible with the murder of the deceased one Emmanuel Mlelwa responds in negative. The evidence tendered has failed to irresistibly point the guilt of the accused persons to the exclusion of any other person. In the premises I hold that the prosecution has failed to discharge its noble duty of proving the case to the standard set by the law which is beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, I. hereby acquit all three accused persons. They are to be released from the prison forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held for another cause. I further make an order to the effect that the motor vehicle make Toyota Gaia with registration No T. 457 DAB be returned to the owner, the 1st accused person if no appeal is preferred. If appeal is preferred the release will wait finalization and the result thereupon. 47 It is so ordered. Court: Judgment delivered through virtual court in the presence of the accused persons in person, Mr. Innocent Kibadu, Mr. Frank Ngafumika, Mr. Dickson Matata, Ms. Neema Msafiri, learned advocates for the accused persons and Elise James, State Attorney for the Republic. Sgd. D.B. Ndunguru Judge 31/12/2024 48