IBRAHIM JONAS WANJARA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA MUSOMA SUB-REGISTRY AT MUSOMA CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 000026168 OF 2024 REPUBLIC VERSUS IBRAHIM JONAS @ WANJARA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 14/03/2025 & 27/03/2025 Kafanabo, J.: In the present case, Ibrahim Jonas @Wanjara (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') is indicted before this court for one count of murder contrary to sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16 R.E. 2022. The particulars of the offence indicate that the accused, on the 5th day of May 2024, at Mwitende village within the Bunda District, in the Mara Region, murdered Pendo Nyamhanga. It was alleged by the Republic that the deceased was working as a barmaid in a bar owned by Mr. Jayaro Zubedi where she started working on 20th April 2024. Whilst working at the said bar, the deceased embraced an intimate relationship with the accused which was palpable because the accused used to go to the said bar and take the deceased with her. It was further alleged that on the 5th day of May 2024, the deceased was with her fellow barmaid named Ms. Mariam Uchagula at the bar where i the accused showed up and took the deceased with her. Thereafter, the deceased was never seen again until the 9th day of May 2024, when her body was found in the bush. The police were informed and went to the crime scene accompanied by a medical doctor and, upon examination of the body, the doctor observed that the body was lying on the ground in a supine position with no clothes and was infested with and covered by maggots. The clothes were beside the body with underwear covered with blood, the left hand was missing and the abdomen was raptured. The doctor concluded that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding. The prosecution also presented that the investigation of the case was conducted and the accused was arrested on the same date as a suspect because he was alleged to be the last person to be seen with the deceased alive. The information for murder against the accused was read over to the accused, and he pleaded not guilty thereto, which necessitated the matter to proceed to a full trial. At the hearing, Mses. Agma Haule, and Natujwa Bakari, learned State Attorneys, entered an appearance for the Republic while the accused was represented by Mr. Daudi Mahemba, a learned Advocate. For purposes of establishing a case against the accused, the prosecution paraded three (03) witnesses and tendered one (01) exhibit. The witnesses who testified for the prosecution were PW1- Jayaro Zubedi, PW2- Daudi Mswahili, and PW3- PF.23246 A/Inspector Twaha Nyangusi. 2 Moreover, the testimonies of the said witnesses were supported by the postmortem report of the alleged body of Pendo Nyamuhanga ©Ghati Nyamuhanga dated 9th May 2024, and admitted as exhibit 'Pl'. The prosecution's case was unbolted by the testimony of Jayaro Zubedi who testified as PW1. He testified that in April 2024 he hired two employees one being Neema or Pendo Nyamhanga (the deceased) and another was Mariam Masunga both of whom he received on 19/04/2024, coming from Tarime for purposes of working as barmaids at his grocery/bar located at Genge Stendi-Hamlet, Mwitende Village, Bunda District, in the Mara Region, where he also lives. PW1 testified further that shortly, in the course of her employment, the deceased was in a fleshly relationship with the accused who regularly picked the deceased from PWl's grocery (hereinafter referred to as the 'grocery'). PW1 also testified to having known the accused from their childhood because they lived in the same village and he was a regular customer at the grocery. It was further testified that on 05/05/2024 at 09.00 p.m., the accused left with the deceased from the grocery when PW1 was seated outside the grocery, a step away from the accused. The deceased was dressed in a black skirt and a blouse with zebra-like stripes. DW1 was able to identify the accused, who went to the grocery riding on a motorcycle because the grocery is electrified and thus there was sufficient light. However, PW1 did not remember the colour of the motorcycle ridden by the accused on that day. 3 PW1 further testified that the deceased never reported to work the next day on 06/05/2024, and her mobile phone was not reachable. He called the accused asking about the whereabouts of the deceased, the accused replied that the deceased would come, but the deceased never showed up. On 07/05/2024 PW1 reported the deceased as a missing person to the village Chairman, Mr. Daudi Mswahili. On 09/05/2024 at 02.00 p.m., a bell of the incident resonated in the village, they gathered and were led to the incident at a place along Bunda-Kisorya road. At the scene, they saw the body of a human, undressed and the clothes had been put aside. The body was in an awful decomposing condition. He recognized the body as that of Pendo Nyamhanga because of the apparel (a blouse) she wore on 05/05/2024 when she left with the accused. Further, it was the Ward Executive Officer who arrested the accused on 09/05/2024. In the end, PW1 recognized the accused as Ibrahim Jonas by pointing at him in Court. PW2 was Daudi Mswahili, who was also the Chairman of Mwitende village when the incident occurred. He testified that on 07/05/2024, Jayaro Zubedi reported to his office that the deceased had not been seen for two days and he informed him that the deceased was a girlfriend of the accused. It was further testified that on 09/05/2024 at 02.00 p.m., PW2 was called by the chairperson of the CCM-Genge branch who informed him that the body of a human (female) was found aside the road at Genge Stendi Hamlet, in Mwitende village. He went to the scene where the body was located, he found a crowd of people observing the body. He called all chairpersons of hamlets in his village so that they could disseminate information about the incident. He also phoned the police informing them of 4 the incident. The police officers and the doctor went to the scene, they examined the body which had badly decomposed and they resolved that the body be buried at the place where it was found. Then the body was buried at the scene, and they dispersed as the police took over the matter for other necessary steps. PW2 further testified that the person who identified the body was Jayaro Zubedi, who said that the body was of his employee who had not been seen since 05/05/2024. The suspects were Ibrahim Jonas, the deceased lover, and Frank Jarega @Wakiduku who were arrested on diverse dates and taken to a police station. PW3 was PF.23246 A/Inspector Twaha Nyangusi from Bunda Police Station. He testified that on 09/05/2024, the OCCID informed him that the body of a human was found in a shrub near the Bunda - Kisorya Road, at Mwitende village. Then, he and other police officers headed to the incident, and upon arrival at Mwitende village they sought the assistance of the Chairman of the village, Mr. Daudi Mswahili, who led them to the scene, and upon arrival, they found a medical doctor by the name of Lilian from Nansimo Dispensary and other villagers. PW3 further testified that the body of the deceased was recognized by Jayaro Zubedi and Mariam Uchagula based on the clothes the deceased wore the last day she was seen. Jayaro Zubedi said that the deceased was her employee working at the counter of the grocery and Mariam said that she was a co-worker of the deceased at the bar. The medical doctor examined the body of the deceased and concluded that the death of the deceased was caused by a lack of oxygen in the brain which was caused by massive loss 5 of blood. Since the body of the deceased had badly decomposed it was buried at the scene. Then, they left for Nansimo Dispensary following a postmortem report. Later they were informed that Ibrahim Jonas had been arrested by the villagers accusing him of killing the deceased. They went to Mwitende village and took Ibrahim to the Bunda Police Station for investigation. PW3 further testified that Jayaro Zuberi explained to them that on 05/05/2024 at 09.00 p.m., the accused left with the deceased from his bar and she never returned until her dead body was found. On 12/05/2024, another person by the name of Frank Jarega was arrested in connection with the death of the deceased. Further testimony of PW3 was that in the course of the investigation, Jayaro and Mariam informed them that the said Frank was seen with the deceased on 05/05/2024 at 07.00 p.m. Given the time at which Frank Jarega was seen with the deceased that is at 07.00 p.m., and Ibrahim Jonas left with the deceased at 09.00 p.m., they concluded that Ibrahim Jonas was the one who left with the deceased. PW3 also tendered a postmortem report regarding the body of the deceased dated 9th May 2024 which was admitted as exhibit'Pl'. In cross-examination, PW3 testified that the circumstances under which the deceased met her death are a mystery and he did not know when the deceased passed on, even according to the postmortem report, it is not possible to tell exactly when the deceased passed on. It was further testified that apart from the identification done by Jayaro Zubedi and Mariam Uchagula, nothing else proved that the person who left with the accused was 6 the same found dead at the crime scene, considering that the human body found had decomposed and had maggots. Before the closure of the prosecution's case, the accused and his advocate waived the accused's right to cross-examine the author of exhibit 'Pl', a postmortem report of the body of the deceased under section 291(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 20. R.E. 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the CPA). After the closure of the prosecution's case, the accused was found with a case to answer and thus invited to make his defence. He defended himself under oath as DW1 and did not call any other witness. He testified that he was a resident of Mwitende village in the Bunda District working as a Motorcyclist (bodaboda rider) conveying passengers to various destinations. He was arrested on 09/05/2024 by the Ward Executive Officer called Agustino at Kabirizi Primary School in Kabirizi village when riding a motorcycle. DW1 testified that he came to know he was arrested concerning the murder case involving the death of Pendo Nyamhanga after spending three days in police custody when his statement was being taken. The accused also admitted that he had a sexual relationship with the deceased, but they never quarreled and they had not met for some time before he heard about her demise. DW1 also laid it bare that he did not go to the grocery where the deceased worked on 05/05/2024, and that the testimony of PW1 was a lie as he did not visit the PWl's grocery on the fateful day. He started his relationship with the deceased on 12/04/2024 and used to go to the grocery 7 several times because he was transporting passengers to the grocery, and he was accused of her death because he was the deceased's lover. He never visited the place where the body of the deceased was found. DW1 testified that the last time he met the deceased was on 23/04/2024, and they were communicating with the deceased as usual through mobile phones. The accused further testified that his relationship with the deceased was good, they never quarreled. On 05/05/2024, the deceased called him, and they greeted each other. On 06/05/2024, PW1 called him and asked for the deceased and he told him that she was not at his home because he had not met her for some time. PW1 told the accused that the deceased was not at work on 06/05/2025 and her mobile phone was not reachable. The accused also called her mobile phone, but could not reach her as well, the accused also called her phone repeatedly from 07th to 9th May 2024 but could not reach her, but he went on with his activities. In cross-examination, the accused, DW1, testified that he started a relationship with Pendo on 12/04/2024. They met three times in their relationship, the first time was on 12/04/2024, the second time was on 18/04/2024 and the last time was on 23/04/2024. He admitted that he did not explain where he was on 05/05/2024. He further explained that on 05/05/2024 he did not meet the deceased and it was possible not to know her whereabouts because he was not cohabiting with her even though they communicated regularly. Given the testimony of DW1, the defence closed their case. Having both the prosecution and the defence closed their cases, it is opportune for 8 this Court to determine the case against the accused in light of the evidence on record. It follows that, in the light of the evidence on record, this Court is called upon to determine whether the Republic has proved her case that the accused is responsible for the murder of Pendo Nyamhanga (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') beyond a reasonable doubt. In answering this key question, the Court is guided by the provisions of section 196 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16 R.E. 2022 which reads: ' Any person who, with malice aforethought, causes the death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder' In light of the above section, and in order to prove that a person is guilty of murder, it must be proved that the death of a person has been caused by an unlawful act or omission with malice aforethought. It is also a fundamental principle of law that the prosecution in criminal trials has to establish and prove the allegations against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law, the duty that never shifts to the accused. Section 3(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 6 R. E. 2019 is relevant; also see the cases of Six Ilanga @ Msaka vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2020) [2024] TZCA 95 (23 February 2024), John Dickson @ Ngongole vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 144 (29 February 2024), and Awadhi Abrahamani Waziri vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2014) [2015] TZCA 274 (24 February 2015). Likewise, in the case of Mohamed Said Matula v. Republic 1995 TLR 3, the Court of Appeal held that: 9 "Upon a charge of murder being preferred, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove not only the death but also the link between the said death and the accused; the onus never shifts away from the prosecution and no duty is cast on the appellant to establish his innocence." Consequently, in order to prove the aforementioned, the following questions must be answered; one, whether the said Pendo Nyamhanga is dead, two, what caused her death (whether her death is attributed to natural or unnatural causes), three, if the death was due to unnatural causes then who or what caused the death of the deceased, and whether the causation was a result of a lawful or unlawful act or omission. Four, the last question would be whether the causation was with malice aforethought. The quest for answers to the above-mentioned questions is heartened by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Abel Orua @ Matiku & Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 2020) [2024] TZCA 78 (21 February 2024), where it was held that: "It is a settled position of the law that in proving the offence ofmurder under section 196 of the Penal Code, it must be established that the death of a human being occurred, that the death was unnatural and was caused by an unlawful act or omission, that it was the accused person who did the unlawful act or omission leading to the death of the deceased and finally that the death was caused with malice aforethought." Nevertheless, before plunging into the analysis of the evidence on record, it is important, at the outset, to categorically set the ground level io that the evidence on record is purely circumstantial as there is neither eye witness nor direct evidence connecting the accused with the murder of the deceased. It follows that the law on circumstantial evidence is settled in our jurisdiction taking into account a plethora of authorities in that respect which this Court will briefly retreat to. It is a trite law that circumstantial evidence must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence he is charged with. In the case of Mathias Bundala vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 62 of 2004) [2007] TZCA 16 (16 March 2007), the Court of Appeal held that: "Z/7 short, a case depending conclusively on circumstantial evidence, the court must before deciding on a conviction, find that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that ofguilty. Moreover, in the case of Leonard Bundala Malulanya @ Rena Ngasa vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No.313 of 2022) [2023] TZCA 17345 (19 June 2023) the Court of Appeal quoting its earlier decision in Jimmy Runangaza v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 159B of 2017 (unreported), held that: "In order for the circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, it mustpoint irresistibly to the accused's guilt. (See Simon Musoke v. Republic, [1958] EA 715). Sarkar on Evidence, 15th Ed. 2003 Report Vol. 1 page 63 also emphasized that on cases which rely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following three tests which are: li 1) the circumstances from which an inference ofguilty is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and 3) the circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a chain so, complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and no one else. Guided by the principles in the above authorities, it is, here and now, important to, first, determine whether the circumstantial evidence on record conclusively proves that Pendo Nyamhanga is dead and that her death was due to unnatural causes. In light of the evidence on record and according to the testimony of PW1, PW2, and PW3 considered together with the postmortem report admitted as exhibit 'Pl', this Court undoubtedly rules that death of a human being befallen, a fact proved by a decomposing female human body that was found at a shrub in the wilderness, along Bunda-Kisorya road in the Mwitende Village, in the Bunda District. The said human body was also buried near the place where it was located because it was in an awfully decomposing condition. The next crucial question in resolving the accusations against the accused is whether the said body of the lifeless female human was that of Pendo Nyamhanga, who went missing on 06/05/2024 when she was supposed to report for work. In light of the evidence on record, amongst the 12 prosecution's witnesses, it is only PW1 who testified to have identified the body of the deceased as that of Pendo Nyamhanga. The said PW1 testified that he identified the body of the deceased, which was stripped naked, based on the blouse she wore the last time he saw her on 05/05/2024 at 09.00 p.m. He explained the said blouse had colours of zebra-like streaks. PW1 also explained that the clothes, supposedly, of the deceased were beside the dead body found at Mwitende village. Moreover, all the prosecution's witnesses (PW1, PW2, and PW3) made it crystal clear that the body had decomposed, it was covered with maggots, especially on the head and it could not be recognized by visual identification or facial characteristics. The said testimony was further fortified by the contents of the exhibit 'Pl', a postmortem report of the body allegedly of Pendo Nyamuhanga. The report indicates that the body of the deceased was lying in a supine position with no clothes and covered with maggots. The key observations of the Clinical Officer who examined the body partly reads: ''Position and attitude of the body: tying in supine position with no clothes covered with maggots" "Condition of clothing if any: she was naked but clothes beside the body" "Pupils: I didn't asses because was covered with maggots" "Skull and its contents including orbits and nasal cavities: I didn't assess because was covered with maggots" 13 In light of the above contents of the postmortem report, two matters arise as regards the identification of the body of the deceased. First, it is clear that, given the state of the body of the human being found at the crime scene the same could not be recognized by visual identification, which finding is fortified by the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3 who went to the crime scene and observed the exact dreadful condition of the decomposing human body. Second, PW1 claimed to have identified the body of the deceased, based on the blouse/top she wore on 5th May 2024. He testified that the clothes were beside the body of the deceased, marrying the comments of the clinical officer in the postmortem report. However, PW2 and PW3 testified that, at the crime scene, there was a black skirt and underwear, and the blouse was still dressed on the body of the deceased. Regarding the said state of clothing alleged to be of the deceased two more matters arise: i. The prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on the state of clothes found at the crime scene. PWl's testimony together with exhibit 'Pl' indicates that the body of the deceased was naked, and the clothes were beside the dead body. However, PW2 and PW3 testified that the underwear and the skirt were beside the body but the body was dressed in a blouse with zebra­ like stripes. ii. The garments that were allegedly found beside the body of the deceased and/or dressed on the deceased were neither seized from the scene, nor tendered as exhibit in Court so as to enable the witnesses to identify them as: one, belonging to the 14 deceased, two, dressed by the deceased the last day PW1 saw her, three, dressed on the body found at the scene and, four, whether the clothes matched those found at the crime scene. Failure to seize the said clothes which were very key in the identification of the deceased and tender them as exhibits in Court crumbled the prosecution's case, and, in addition, contravened Police General Orders (hereinafter referred to as the 'PGO') 225, which under paragraph 10(c) provides that: "Where a post-mortem examination is ordered the investigating officer shall (d) cause all clothing to be removed from the body in his presence and such clothing will be treated in the same way as articles found on the deceased and full details recorded in his notebook. Details of any marks, particularly of a transitory nature, e.g., damp patches, will also be entered in his notebook and subsequently transferred to the Case File In light of the above, it is a view of this Court that given the contradiction of the prosecution witnesses on whether the deceased body was dressed in a blouse with zebra stripes or it was completely naked, and taking into account that none of the clothes found at the crime scene were tendered as exhibits in Court, it is extremely unsafe to rely on the 15 identification of the body of the deceased based on the alleged blouse of the deceased not tendered in Court as an exhibit. Another contradiction among the prosecution's witnesses was on the issue of the identity card of the deceased. PW2 testified that they came to know the name of Pendo Nyamhanga when they went to search her place and found the identity card with the name of Pendo Nyamhanga. However, PW3 testified that no identity card was found by PW2 or any other person, and thus apart from identification of the body of the deceased by PW1 vide the colour of the blouse, nothing else made them believe that the body found was that of Pendo Nyamhanga. It is also on record that no identity card was tendered as an exhibit in Court. Moreover, under normal circumstances, the contradictions and inconsistencies explained above could have been taken lightly and considered trivial. However, under the circumstances of this case, the contradiction is major because the identification of the body of the deceased by PW1, based on the alleged blouse of the deceased, is the foundation of the case against the accused. It follows that the contradictions and inconsistencies, coupled with the non-tendering of the said clothes, go to the root of the case. This Court's position is fortified by a surfeit of the Court of Appeal authorities in that respect as demonstrated, momentarily, herein below. In the case of Matera Simango @ Masana vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 517 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 621 (29 October 2021), the Court of Appeal held that: 16 'Similarly, we entertain no doubt that the descriptive inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as reflected in the evidence reproduced above, is material and went to the root of the prosecution case. It is indeed, unfortunate that the two courts below did not thoroughly address those 10 inconsistencies and contradictions which are apparent in the prosecution witnesses' evidence and resolve it as required by law. By way of emphasis on the importance of resolving contradictions and inconsistencies, we wish to reiterate what the Court stated in Mohamed Said Matuia v. Republic [1995] T.L.R. 3 that: "Where the testimony of witnesses contains inconsistencies and, the court has a duty to address the inconsistencies and try to resolve them where possible, else the court has to decide whether the inconsistencies and contradictions are only minor or whether they go to the root of the matter. " See also the Court of Appeal decision in Abel Orua @ Matiku & Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 2020) [2024] TZCA 78. Also in the case of Mapambano Michael @ Mayanga vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2015) [2016] TZCA 310 (25 April 2016), it was observed that: "On our part, we do not think that failure on the part of the complainant (PW1) to indicate in her statement whether she was attacked by the appellant while she was inside her house or outside is a minor omission that does not go into her credibility." 17 In the said case, the Court of Appeal also observed that: "The seriousness with which this Court views contradictions was reflected in Munziru Amri Mujibu and Dionizi 14 Rwehabura Kyakaylo vs. R., Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2012 (unreported) wherein the Court regarded contradictions in evidence so material to the integrity of the conviction of the appellant that it did not wish to engage other grounds of appeal". In light of the above, and given the weight of the importance of the identification of the body of the deceased in a murder case, and in this case in particular, this Court is of the view that the contradictions and or inconsistencies are so material and thus go to the root of identification of the body of the deceased and the case against the accused in general. Further, the issue of identification of the body of the deceased became vaguer when the Court realized that there was no forensic proof tendered by the prosecution to prove that the dead human body found at Mwitende village was that of Pendo Nyamhanga. Under the circumstances of this case, where the death of the deceased occurred under mysterious circumstances, and the body could not be recognized by visual identification or facial characteristics, because of being in a severe decomposition state, the prosecution and the investigation authorities were expected to take a step further in employing forensic methods of identifying the body of the dead. Further, a virtuous guide is also provided under the PGO 225, which, in general, provides for the handling of the dead bodies and investigation thereof. Paragraph 4 of PGO 225 provides that: 18 "At the scene, the investigating officer shall endeavour to establish the cause of death. If he is of the opinion that the person has met his death by unnatural means, i.e. (a) has committed suicide; or (b) has been killed accidentally; or (c) had died in circumstances which suggest that an offence may have been committed, he shall:- (vii) take all necessary steps to have the body identified. If identification before removal is not possible, the body shall be fingerprinted and photographed in the clothes in which it was found and as far as possible in a lifelike and natural position. The photographs will show one full face and one in profile. The negatives, with one print, and the fingerprint forms will be dispatched to the Forensic Bureau. Other copies of the photographs will be attached to a description which shall be circulated to neighbouring Police Stations. The above provision of the PGO directs that if identification of the body is not possible before it is removed from the scene, then the body should be fingerprinted and photographed in the clothes in which it was found. In this case aforementioned requirements were not met. At this juncture, it is important to state that the identification of the human remains in the present 19 case, which could not be recognized with certainty, was taken so lightly compromising the requirements of the law. Further, the requirement of taking fingerprints and forwarding the same to the forensic bureau for further analysis speaks bulks that the investigators should have resorted to the forensic methods of identifying the human remains found at Mwitende village for reliable identification carrying the weight of the offence of murder and demonstrating the value of the lost human soul. The forensic methods include fingerprint comparison (dactylography), comparative dental radiography, surgical hardware and implants (with unique numbers), radiographic comparison, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing or profiling. These methods could have been preferred by the prosecution to ensure that the dead human body is properly identified. See Autopsy & Forensics General Identification, Ninivirta (et al), accessed at https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/forensicsidentification.html on 25th March 2025. Moreover, given the circumstances under which the dead body was found, it was vital for further inquiry to be held regarding the human remains alleged to be of Pendo Nyamhanga. Under section 7(1) of the CPA, it is provided that: 7. -(1) Every person who is or becomes aware- fa) of the commission ofor the intention ofany other person to commit any offence punishable under the Penal Code; or (b) of any sudden or unnatural death or death by violence or of any death under suspicious circumstances or of the body of 20 anyperson being found dead without it being known how that person died, shall forthwith give information to a police officer or to a person in authority in the locality who shall convey the information to the officer in charge of the nearest police station. Furthermore, section 8 of the CPA provides that: "All inquiries into sudden deaths or other deaths reported under section 7 shall be carried out by such persons as are authorised under, and in such manner as is provided for by, the Inquests Act". Also, the said provisions of the CPA are supplemented by the provisions of PGO 225 which under paragraph 6 provides that: "If, after preliminary investigation, it appears to the police that a person has died either a violent or unnatural death or has died in prison or police custody, the 0/C Station concerned shall, without delay, cause notice of the death in the Form "B" to the Inquests Act, Cap. 21R. E.2002, to be sent to the Coroner having localjurisdiction to hold an inquest, stating any particulars concerning the cause of the death disclosed by the investigation and giving an opinion as to whether or not the death is due to any unlawful act or omission." Moreover, under section 12(1) of the Inquest Act, Cap. 24 R.E.2019 upon receipt of notice of death, the Coroner would hold an inquiry on the 21 reported death under section 6 of the Inquest Act. Additionally, section 19(1) of the Inquest Act provides that: "19. -(1) The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining- (a) who the deceased was; (b) how, when and where the deceased came by his death; (c) whether the circumstances of the death disclose any offence; (d) the particulars concerning the death which are required in pursuance of any written law for the time being in force. The contents of the above provisions of section 19(1) and other provisions regarding holding of an inquest referred hereinabove, indicate unambiguously that, had the same been complied with and an inquest held, a lot of unanswered questions in this case, including who the deceased was, could have been answered by the Coroner after holding inquests proceedings. Thereafter, the Coroner could submit his opinion to the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 28 of the Inquests Act and could submit a return to the Registrar of the High Court, under section 29 of the Inquests Act. All the above-discussed compliances would have great impact on the identification of the dead human body found in Mwitende village and would have paved the way for other steps to be taken in the interest of justice. The importance of identification of a dead body is explained by Kumar A. et al, in an abstract of the article "Identification of unclaimed dead bodies- 22 A possible aadhar based solution: International Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicological Sciences, October-December, 2018;3(4):74-76, where it is written that: "Establishing the identity is the first step in any investigation process. Without this it is very difficult to proceed with the inquiry. It is said that the dead speaks but we should be having ears for hearing; meaning we should be properly equipped and oriented to make use of all the available resources for the same. The con ventional methods followed in our country leaves many lacunae in the process of identification and therefore many a times the dead body remains unidentified. It increases the burden of unsolved crimes and the accused can easily get away if the identity of the victim is not established. Moreover, it further dents the hopes of grieving relatives. So it becomes more important to use the best of our available resources to fasten the process of identification and make it more efficacious." In light of the above and considering the evidence on record, upon receiving information about the dead body and visiting the scene where the body was found, it is crystal clear, to say the least, that very little or naught was done by the investigation machinery and the prosecution in general in ensuring that the human body alleged to be of Pendo Nyamhanga was properly identified. In light of the above, this Court is not convinced that the dead human body, found at Mwitende village, was properly identified as that of Pendo 23 Nyamhanga in respect of whom the accused is prosecuted to have allegedly murdered for the following reasons: One, given the state of the body, which had awfully decomposed, visual identification could not be preferred to identify the body of the deceased and none of the witnesses identified the body as such. Two, neither articles nor clothes were collected from the scene, though found on/beside the body, which would have been invaluable in the identification of the body and investigation in general. Three, the top/blouse allegedly worn by the Pendo Nyamhanga on the last day she went missing and which allegedly enabled PW1 to identify the body of the deceased as that of Pendo Nyamhanga was neither seized from the crime scene nor tendered in Court as an exhibit. Four, the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 contradicted each other on the whether the key item/article in identification of the deceased body, a blouse with Zebra like stripes, was dressed on the deceased body or it was dumped beside the body. Five, no forensic method of identification of the remains of human body, which could produce more precise results, was employed by the investigation authorities in identifying the human body thought to be that of Pendo Nyamhanga. Six, no fingerprint analysis was done on the apparel and articles found at the crime scene to determine the identity of the deceased and the culprits of the murder, as circumstances suggest that the body at the scene was stripped of her apparel. 24 Seven, no formal inquiry was held as per the requirements of the Inquest Act, Cap. 24. R.E. 2019 on the human remains found at Mwitende village and thus there is no report/opinion of the Coroner pursuant to the law which would have been useful in resolving the questions about the relevant human body found dead in the wilderness. Consequently, this Court rules that the Republic has failed to prove that the dead body allegedly found at a shrub, in the wilderness, along Bunda-Kisorya road on 9th May 2024, was that of Pendo Nyamhanga. Further, following the failure to prove that the dead body was that of Pendo Nyamhanga, this Court also finds that the prosecution failed to prove the death of the said Pendo Nyamhanga whom the accused is alleged to have murdered. It follows that the information for murder preferred against the accused was misconceived and unjustified in terms of section 196 of the Penal Code. This is because the prosecution was required to prove not only the death of Pendo Nyamhanga, but also the link between the said death and the accused; the onus never shifts away from the prosecution and no duty is cast on the accused to establish his innocence as held in the cases of Mohamed Said Matula v. Republic (supra) and Abel Orua @ Matiku & Others vs Republic (supra)). Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the dead body was that of Pendo Nyamhanga as alluded herein above, and thus it will be an exercise in futility to even think of establishing a nexus between the unconfirmed death of Pendo Nyamhanga and the accused. 25 Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the Republic has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in terms of section 3(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 6 R. E. 2019, and thus the accused is not responsible for the offence of murder levelled against him by the Republic. Therefore, this Court hereby acquits the accused, Ibrahim Jonas @ Wanjara, of the offence of murder of Pendo Nyamhanga. The Court further sets the accused at liberty and, unless held for any other lawful cause, orders his immediate release from the detention facility where he is currently held. It is so ordered. The Judgment was delivered in the presence of Martha Mbosoli, a learned State Attorney, and in the presence of Mr. Daudi Mahemba, a learned Advocate for the accused and in the presence of the accused. K. I. Kafanabo Judge 27/03/2025 26