NA TZCA Mwanza

I ! f' ~ -,;;r;~:- ,. . .....,._.,,.,_f.·-· ~~.;;;.::c:...=·==;. 395 P02 ,,, 11 i! !:' / i .,)4 ,.., f . ' I I I ! I ' i' . .:'i' I . I'·:•:•. ,I .. - - JN THE COURT OF. ~Pl6,L OF TANZANIA o, • 1. I ; AT MWANz.a. ' i. I I ■ ..... 1i ', IIYAW.X 1 C.J,_,,,, JWW!Et J~A.•ra;~/5;JW!!!A, J.A.) k> I1 i CRIMINAL APPEAL Ji~., 2 A ar 1on1. Tr •· , I , I I .1n1DnUA1.1 T>A'-•HID ft.1.&¥.lnn.L1 AIM.> • • I : . : e ~ •. • • ·.• A&"".r..-..-,a&-. _.._.,...,,.um... I :; Am):! 11 I iII 1mf I ll Ii 111 I: [I i I I , i I ti' I! I II :i :I i 395 P03 '.I ,j - 2 - II ~Uy aftervard4 the deceaeed left and .went to a caesav,a ~ ~· ' .ahemhfl.!neub1 and the alJ>pelle.nt : . . stood up and toll.owed. h~ The i .L appellant pieked up a atick and struck the deceased with it 011 the head• . !be deceased fell down and died on the spot. I tJap.14 defence the appellant raised the defences ot intoxication , .. ',I 8Dd Pl"C!YOOation which were duly considered and rejected by the trial • . I •,, jaadge. : ' ~. H.K. Ktaki, leal'ned advocate appear~ror the appellant. i 1, ·1'Ued ~ totw. of four growids of appoal name,~, I I I I. I !•' .. ' • - ~ .u.o~ oeen properly recorded. '' '•· '1 I, c!. ~llllt the learnod judge erred by ignoring the I ~. ', t- '·. /: i ...•: I• l 'j_ : •, i'Mt tbat the appellant bad been t&.esau.lttt4, w!art1 he made the cautioned statemont. • :1 .:_. Th:.lt on tbe evidence on recOl'd the learned judge erred ill law in diamiesing the appellant 1 8 . ~tenoee ot intoxication 8Jld provocation. I tt l: -i. ~t the learnod judge erred in 1- in. convicting the appellant with the otfe.nce of ~der c/a 196 I t!i'l the Penal Code 11rhile the.re was no evidence to ' .. ' ' . ,,.. '· 1,,..,.·· ' '' . . I r ' i, d it:,, \ l, (3). A police officer ~ho makea a Nc~ o! • ~· t ' !' u inten1ev with a person in accordance I vith aub--section (2) ahall write; or 395 P04 26-05-08 09:54 ., .,-.····:.·· . ,: - 3 - .. ,. ') cause to be writte~, at the end of t.he, .\ .. record a form o! certificate in accordance r t-~ iI I- with a prescribed fonn and ab.all then, I , < unleao the pereon is uaabl.e to read - : ,,.. \ ., ·rs :[ (a) show the recorc:! to the person and ask him - ,. 1 " i ,- (i) to read the record anci make ally 1. alteratio.El or con-ect~ to it i i he wiahea to· make and . addi ' to. it I.. I : ~ ~; I any __furth_.ei- state1Dent that he ,:. I • ,. wi1Shee to make; (ii) to sign the certificate eot o~t I.;, .. --, . .i '. !;-,.,.. i at the end ot the record1 812d. L~,• ~.) ·.• ,1 ! (iii) if the record extends ovor more f' i I than one l)Q8V, to initial each !I (. .., ' ,it.:;; ' . page that 1s·not signed by him; \· and I ! I ·n_____ 1t. - · · - - - .. - - -Wh~t hi hu rtrmn au 11 111 11• fl. 1 matters the person refused? failed or appeared to tail to comp]3 with the·. ! t ·\rdc,.: · requeat.i 1 .: · i: .· . 1 :·, • : • .·+tteclly I . the cautioned statement doea not bear: the cerU.ft~~e :~ r ~ e d by the aub-sec;tion and it would appear .:~t ,~~~.•~~.ribed f~~~~en-ed to under the sub-eection ~ not y~t be~_det~~!or _.~• Mtaki submittod with great for_ce ~bat ~.-~c~. _9/ ;:;.l r" , s.~.~t-U:icate necessarily rendered the caut~C?P-.~d o~t~~\.fo~~nrirs&tble.• ( .' In:.. this . regard·-·he . drew our attention to t)le· use· of' the vor.d .o~u . . in \ .a . ~~~c_t~ which• he said, madG the requireinent_ man~t~~ .: l. · Mi-. Xabonde• learned State Attorney appear~ for the respondent I !,.bpiblic, resisted Mr. Mtaki 1 e contention and, 1n our viev, rightly ;_i-:·\ . . ,~.i\:•,.: . ~-· ·'; ~ '.\~:. . ,... •• :~ 'I I: ' 395 P05 26-05-08 09:54 .,I.;. ~ provioicme of sub-section c,> like the other provieiObS 1! · of''aection 57 ot the Act are designed to safeguard 'the rights. and ., . . . 14terests of the persons aur..pected by the police of eolllDi.ttj.ng ~(4 ~ ,· otfuoes. In particular they eeek to ensure that ata~ments . \. - aljl-8~ made to the police by such suspects aN voluntary and fl-ee tr,oif'errar, and the cou.rts will alway,, strivo to enauro that this ! o'b~•ct i.e-·a.chieved. But such spirit and endeavour c81l!lot justify copetruing the word ;;slwl.•; in sub-section (3) u imposiJlS a striot or: m,µda.tory requirement a.a contended by Hr. Mtaki. It is not in !·•.11... .• .· .• , t evWi ..~e .tbat the absonce of a certil1cate in terms_ -~f t_h~- sub-. ·, . .; -ii~i .~ _re~er the cautioned statement ~issi~~• :~· , .. :.: -·; { . . : i. 1,~~•. voere the \roluntariness or con:ectne_ss. ~f a c~~ti~ --~~~tement ·-:. ! 1s!~t disJ!uted or challenged., there can hardly be en.y juatitication tat' :it ~•.I'.: ., . ~ I ;·. ·:. :, i f :=r;~~i:= by t~ court. ;·'. ..:;;.}: 1!-~~ :Ve· tbiak that where a cautioned etate111t1nt ia objected to for •· .. :•. li · t' I ·,1 v~t ot· a certificate as required by sub.section (3) or the Act, vnat .. · t '-~t'oom't should do i8 to aace.rtain on the voluntarinesa and carnotneu.a ·I . i ' ot ~- statement, usually by holding a ~ial vithin a trial. It the ., ! ~· .. • I• : ·. ! ~ \ ~ ',• .. i' _coutt J~:,~t~fied that the stat~ment waa made voluntarily aiid was ~ec~ CQITectly it should proceod to adad.t it in evidenc~:•~~·it -~ ~~ -~~.,~ ~tis~ied t~on 1 t should: accordingly! hold it ·•·;;ad~ ~bl~~-~; h•... :1.n c .:·. · : . piu·l, .·,. . :.'. -1· ·. I ... ; ~ ..,: ~:..~r.n the present case the appellant's ·cautioned atate11181lt•was,not . \;: . . .h.ob:I ;' ·•:. ~to even· tbo'f' the al?it..ai~ lftH rrnr111nt1r1 hv nm11~nl •· . :. :-•• ..-, ..- r. "UO 1 • .Affflti \al nnlirl nffinnn 11'11 •11 11 l 1 ll..l -l-L--L - ! w.u tu·· defence bad. any x-eaao.n for objecting t~ the state111eut they ' ' ~ -'niaed objection and the judge woul4 ha>• token epprop,-iate I . ! . 1ote~u outliued above. 'l'he detenOet however, did not·do tba.t',·and. i _.: : •.jMt-. !Mtaki·•• criticism that the trial judge wrongl:y admitted the ·-t,·:·_:_··.L ., . . ~-· .. ~ ,. ---~,_______............__ ·,. appei'l.ant •a ce.utioned statement in e11idence is .. wholly unjuatj!W._ . j : i. . ' r . .. _,_ ,.......,...... ............. 395 P06 . ., . ·• ·ir 26-05-08 09:55 ... , .. .5 - i ·I,~,-, ad.ci, for the aalte of coinpleteness, that even,¥ the i . caut~ etatement were to be excluded, that would make no difference ~ 1 .. ,. ' . . . . . bec1,~~ trW Ju... did not reJ.y on it to convict the ~-~~•-, he iacl 0ll the evidence of Pw2 1 N3 and PW4 which he rightly tolµld .. .d ,- ·1•· · .. ·, · . , · .. ···'" tn',~ · to_ 'bi'l1~~be~. Furthermore, the appeµ.&nt hilllaelf in l;da::~vide~ce a~ t1fr:.1;ial admittc:td__ kill~ the dec,eased by hitting him ~ith, ~ piec_e ' . . "'T.• ,}:'~1e _tu-at _gt""ound_ ,.. o~, 1 ~1' _appeal, thez:efore, tailB. . . :~ the second gr,ound alleging that the appellant bad bee~ l ·-~. ~-~.' . ' .• ~ . . . . :' I. ~it~. ~~ore lllaking th~ alleged cautioned statement, t~~~I.is ··.. •. ~ "'_fi"f:r~e ~~taoevlllr 1 ~d the apptlllant does not ~uggeot, ~~~\~ho . · {' 1)0].ict aeea:uJted him 1n ordor to induce him into making the cautioned v~r. . . .... : . ~ .: ! : ••• ; : :•t·; ._·;. ~ . •t~te'f9:-?t.-:· lrom his own evidence at the trial, as supported_ ~~: .~he ·- ·- ' ~~··.: . ·. l "f.t.~~;,~~tement• his only allegation of _aasault on him,~.~~~~ ·;: i;dA :lt. ·:! U.:~~ ~- ~e not implicate anyone •-~~ But even if:~ ~W-. t~ J.: ;i -· be~ocl• .· t=·. :-:· 1 be, it is not pooai~l• to see how• an aasau1t bl' t";8 would iiaduce ha (the appellant) into makin& an involuntary statement ~~, _ :}' ' !- to u,.j ~~ · nrla itound a1.oo fail&. . · '• "' '·'• ,.- • . '' l·l (. . .1btt . . .. t. .. !;,. :L\':__ ··. J.· -~~ without ~rit is ground throe which .~ege~'~F\~. :; \ ·':11"··. l!.'1· '.:_. ·. triali·j Tl . I'. •.l'' vrongly rejected the appellant's defenc~e ot intaxioation p·•..•· r , f~ ~{ ·'C~e -1 •'t~!·. ,;{: i.; :;: ~l .. · · 'fr:;~ PW2_ ~~d _that tbe appel~t wa.a_ no~ to~~~iY ftt~oated; tJf:.·•:.,·.1,~·: . . . :. be w . ~iam~ ~timulatect by ~~uor or drink •. The • ~ ~ t ~i?ipa~ed t· .. ~f'... . - .I . . . ' · hr, 1•....., - • 1 . • . • .. "·' . . ;4f'· _;;·.:f' ,.ll.LIJnu••--'--•·'" ~- v~t was goin& on at the dr~ing party, Far_. ~!~f.• lrhen ~:t}._: ·.: : · t· ...:· ,. : ~~d w~~ reconcilod after t~ figh~·: · ho ~~· ~l: to i,f, '. , . ;: ri : '\· ./•JIP1"9C (I.) ~; t •. . :te this by ottering to, &nd. t;Jbak~ band witht the deceased in .:f _: · : . \,.:Cognft'fon ot the conciliation and the end.ins of the hostility... Be i. it·· : ·1; - •"f:OoUv•- :IA 1ws attack wbicb on every occasi011 ·w.. directed'" io t ·,-_. ~_i!_;r,·:· ,·.··,·.:._'_, ..1.··. .t., d t ~ ·an4 · to no one else, He knew his target and he "ent for ~ . 1 it. When fil1ally th& deceased left and went to the cassava shalllba tho '.'t~ ti ____ ,,, II .. 6 - ;.. i ~. ~~ \i '· . •,:• . . r•~, i u ..t~ d'.'°e"""d was lying on the ground hel.ple89 tho t·; J~-/' • ~ t tolcl hia fellow villagers to look for transport ~o uke the· . ,. < · decee.eed to hoopital, if he was still alive, and that he (the appellant) :~ /.:; :: \ . . /? ·(:. :'-<~~:_;· _w~wr_._i91 tbe. tranaport c:barg~a• All ~hese rwttera go to show that the ·)Ii, r• 1·-~.:~~ ~ t WU :1n ccntr<>l I · · of to.rmi.ng the ·:wtent rt his faoultas. · to kill or to cause grieVOlUI bodily He was not eo d.=ik .. to ,i\}" ::i:,. . ·· be-,inOApable rt:i !,.:,: . . •~ trial juq9 ri/l'>tl.Y rejected his defence or 1utoadoatian. f-~-~~. _, ,!-:~·. -··'•"·, · ! On the issue of provocation thel'~ .. was overwhelming evidence ·J: :;. ' tbat\ tbe fa~ blov en the deccaaed was Co1'pletely unprovoked., The . ,•· ~ ·!ppe.r-t arJd. tbe _deceased had been reconciled and everybody had .. i ,, I , 1· · belitvod tbat tbat was the end of the i'ignt. It is quite apparent .. L ' • . ,•. I= :'., ~~;, :: .. ·: . that i~t ~~~ a~pell.a.nt and the deceased were Nconciled .tolloviq t,i f'·l _:· _: .: . the ii&ht, the appellant continued to nurse a grudge, and vi\en the I I iI' 1,1:?H~r- ff(:Jt \f .J..~ 'dool4ad to leave, the appollant decided to follow ::· · \•,: · ._ :ID ravenae. '!'hat cannot - · to killing 1u provocation. : Qo. the last ground alleging lack of malice a!orethOUght, the bim and, ; J.::j: : ov+ l hawa that tho appellant killed the decoasod ueing a heavy ~~•,ti.,}'l:~ ~er~~--~t to °"" ¢.ece'• o; vood. He attacked the deceased on the head "hicb is a v.ery ' .. ;J. 1 ~ ~: ;::;\:;·; ... ot the body. He used sufficient .rorce cauae a f. tt;'t. . 1 ·-11racture o£ the llkull. Those are elements from which it ·!: .. \ :,.h,• ;, ~.r =~t:~} '.·. ~as~l.y ':-··••.\, . :,,- "l·l . I be interred that the appellant intended at loast to ~ e .• 1 t..,. ., : ' .. i gdev bodily harm to the deceased. Thi.$ ground, therefore, io -~:.. ,·'{:- .1 · eq vithout merit. ·, • • I '. ·•·;.- :_ and. that 'bis appeal raisea uo pointa ot aubetance. In the result the ~.: ':t•• i . i . .. }:';·:;~!:;;_I.:;.:-~ ~~~u·dwie1ed in its enth-ety. ·:. }/ ,,J ·c'.-' ,. :7 ii\•:~· I /t , : \ 11,:, •,i . ;.} ·1 ·. '. ": . ?-{t., .:_ .;\!'.;:. ~ ! !. ·.:·t • - '.'~ ,I \. ... ••.• /'l " , ·,:. ;,,.-(3.:.:'~i\. ~•-' _ · ~f~_.'>' ._ •.. · ,.-· . i., li0.·,.·1,-c, C?•19')~ . . . . -· g~....~,.....:,.~:~~-~... ·'•.~.~•.i(:-r:·:_it".~~~ :·~:~: ~. ' .. __., .... :-:..:... ·-·· ~. . .. . .. -· . • - f'-1'~:•,.'i»i·. ,. I • ·• •~•~~~.i•••• ? ,:~ •, .. L. M. MAKAME JUSTICE OF Am.AL R.H. KISANGA JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that thia 1s ·a true cop,y of· the original.,. r. !, . • I f' .; .. -.:·•:: "'