NA TZCA Dar es Salaam 2

~ -~~~$"$~~J;~ti'i"",1:;; ~ :-;.~. -~-.. .- .. fr~,'..~--~· .. :.. -,7--1:,, .1''1.,-,Y,---;-;Ji~ ... ~ • "'' ,i,,,;'S<\:.~,, ........ ,._ ~ .. •.•· .-,.. _ .. :-· ,_. ~,\... . . ·-·;\,! ..:::·j_~,,~.-; . r::~;.,,.:,p, f·· 1-~ ~~-~ ~ -•;.;. (· -~, . . !.-!t-~-;~~-~ .· • • • • '; · J:N "THE . COURT O?· · APPEAL !}F '.TANZANIA ' · • •'._ t ·... ~ , . ;-, • ~ ~ • •A&~:~•. 1•· . _.:" .;. :. :.~-~2~A!l . . , ·' · ,, ~ _.'- ?~ .._•; .. -~ ~ J!I .,. RAM:" NYALALI., C.J.; MUSTAFA, _J.A.; MAKAME.z..2~fu:..J KISANGA, ·J.A-. AND •, .·~ ~_-~J T:.;_ . ; ~ • i 1i I \ .,., .).~ '!>, ;_,'OMARt J.A. ·•·•.· ,.••: • .I~· .. "'\ ; ·•: ..... .' t , . CRIMINAL APPEAL NO~ 81 OF 198:S · ·"f;' I·•-..·· ... i•'"'\,,. f . . f' • + .. ' MOHAMED RA.FD< 'RAMZAN • ·• • • •••• ~ ••••• ~ APPELLAN'l' · ~·- ,:.. ••.r•. • ,. . i· ! ! .A O ~ 0 ... ·.:Jl, 1 •"'·• ~.t . .... • And ' ·l . 1 I .: ..., RESPONDENi' ~• • j 1~~---,,. S.M.Z. •••••••••ooao•••••" •u••ovoo• •. · ,~ .~.. -(Appeal from the ~:onviction of the High __ ; -... . court of Zanzibar at Zanzibar) (A.· Ramadhan, ._.. ··-,-:~__J.-'-. .: C.J.) dated 5th Septembe1·, 198~ ..... ... , -~ . •·.. ... .in' · -·, ~ '\. - . ,-; _;• Criminal Sessicr,s Case r,;o,. 4 of ~ .' .\ .. '' .. i '• ·' "' ' .. ~. ,,,. . i, . •:f;;_-....... ':)lis · appeal arises from the decisio:i of the High court for Zanzibar, ,· ~ -~ ,;. ~ ~~~:? ., ~~ ~~adhani, c.J.) si tUng at· Zanzi:.>ar in wh:i.ch the appe~lant MOhal\\ed : , .~; >'. ,:~~.. 1k. Ramzan was convicted of the murder of his wi£e. and was sentenced to ... ·•: :.J7. ••,~.- . . " • • • : ••:~II~ :If? eth. · . ..;,t: ('~ ~ .. ~ ,. ~l •f."_, 'l't!e b~ief_facts of the case were as follows:- The appellant and _;"'·,_t; : :the ,deceased had been !llarried for_ qui.te ,s(?me time· during which they· ' . ~'.r;:' ~, . • r· • -·. .. ~ !brou9h1; forth five children. Their married lif_e,. howeye.r, was not a very .. ·,. '· 3_i, . ,• ' ' .' ' -.;./ 1,:,i;happy_one; .it inv<:»lved ~uarrcls, s.,,)metimes·between the spou,es'thamselve~ -~/. -~rit - rr-(-1.'· .,, ◄ ~a~ -~ornetimes ~ . between the appellant, or the deceased on the· Ofte hand ,and~-- .• ·. .,..... • .. , . ,. .. , M- tinembe, a, Of the deceased' s family on t}1e :ptner •.. It would seem also that . :• - ~ appellant was a man of stra~, ar.cl th~ d~ceasE:d_c:arried o~ p'3t~;- -...,- - ··:;·\ ' ¥~ . .. t.... ,.~ .."'• -4!') ~us~ne,ses fr.om which she secured an income w::. th which to sustain the . · .. ·, jC .. • • • ., : _, • :· II( ~~iy. .The· case for the prosecution was that o:-i the mate.rial. day, the·· '. ~ 'd~~~aae.<1 ~.;.•.~ . . . hacf sent the appellant to buy sO:n<-:· ;::L-.:-:e, but that the appel;Lant -:~};~ . ,,'I, brQught less rice than he was given ::ior.ey .f:'ci:·, This led to a quarrel f . ~r:l.~ . _;: .~ : #iaut~~ng in the appellant pouring kerosen8 on the deceased and setting -; J h-;~\n,~ fire,- The dece.ased suffered s~vere burns all over -h~.ir body. She .:/ ::;' died,nine '•./1,,:;!:,J• ~- days 'later as a result Of shock 'and cor.sequenci~l effects.of . • r ·:· -• ~.... :1· auch~"severe burns. The appell~nt' s defence was 1.:I1at the burn_ing -of the ~ •. -~~•-·· -~7~~:sed ~s accidental. It happened when the deceased was in -the kitchen ... }-f· ✓- • • • ~ OQking while he wes in his room sleeping. ,He was awakened by the noisos ~•'o!. eing ~~ . ,~ made by the deceased and when he went '.;o th~ ,;i:..,,, ... Z?i ~che . ·a•~-d saw. h e_r : ., ...·: 1 .. "('"'. . ~,.i" ,., ·. ~-~ fr.. . ' • •· • •• 12.. ~ . , • -~~~;, • "'""' • ~ at.- ~~ I • / - --:!.:.:::::=.~ - •~ -• • ~7 ~. ~. - • • c;;..,r:-;......~-... - - - - - - - - - - - . - : . - -·-.e-- ",-·~.--:· _,._ : .... _-- ....._.? j • • z;~. ~~~;:;-: ·,. . ~~;::~ • • • '...... • ', • . . . " .... ~ ~ . .,, f.;!'--- • • • • 'll,,... f''. ;"" '. ,_ 4 ,. r. l .t,. - . 2 I • fl~e ehe informed· him that.she got burnt r•Q~ the flamas Qf her cooking suddenly. J:t is to...be-.nQted that in ~ a.t,m.i.laf '·\a~ameni ...... ... Whichto.hadc. W.erupted . •·. ~- . . . . , ' ' ,',. All\Os ahe e_labOrated. ?.n' -~i•s ·aay1ng that as sha was ,... ' . . '~ . ' · ~uelin9 \he stove, some· kerost::::-::i· had· spi~t. on he:- el~thes and_ ~h-on the •~1'9 ~ 41~p;°ed t.t,e· c:iot~es caught' fire.·. ~Th"' app~llant gQea 'on -t~..:,say-that ~,,, . . " ·. . . . .: ·◄ .... . ' . e-,.S.ed ,o oeve the Aeaeasad first ~y.pour~ng water on he~ and l~ter by l,::, - ' ' •. • •' . • . • -: • ' : • "1ng he~ to hospital. · · •· · · · · .. • J' ·, :Cn ton~a'1M_ ~he appellant the le,arned ,Chi~f __Ju~..,~~c:~- r~li3d first,. ~-)'l ·~e e~dence. o.~-.ehildfen w~o ~llegedl~( ' . eya-witJ'.\eue~ -~.e in<:ident and,_, ' . ' :,T~dly, QR the. dying dec:la:-at1on of the deceased. We p~QpOse t~ deal " ~J.\h \)\Q dyiftg ·deda.r;-a~on first. •L • \no, \he deeea1ed had made three versions of her dying· de1i.a~~t1on. Tha learned Chilif. -7.u_atlce ~rightly f~und 1- ,,•~· J:n one ''?' . ~ • ~ . .jtt•aon she_ siated 1:hat she got burnt by .the, flames when h_e_• c;~o~ing stove ..:,,;" ' 1 ~~de~): e!upt,ed a• sh_e was re-fueling it:. In anothe~ ve••~oa s~e assort~;-; I ~~i du.t11;1g· 1:he qua.i:-rel wit_h the appellant ~over the_ ric;e; •.the app(.;lll~t . · , ~ : . . . . -~ PP&Wed _ke.osene on her and she ignited it;: setting herselt· ahl.aze as a .t., !,_{.. - . -~ ::aon~eque1141e. In yet· another version she claimed that the· appall ant pour~d ~\he ~~.l:0$ene on her and ignited it setting her on firA. The l~a.i;-nod .... t ...... ;. . . . ;,. ' ' . . . . ~eil J~s•~ce di~ounted the f.i.rs-t . two_:_ versions and acceptP.d the last one. . . . .. ,. . . . ·!. \ . ~ . ~ . . • ' " 6 • • • • H,e ,eject,ed \)\e fj,,rst version because the. bur~s suffered by' th,;1 _deceasod ~-: . '· . ' . ' .. ' ' , , ;We• so exiens~ve that they could not have been caused by a .mer~ ·spill '?Ver .J w.. . . . . • .. -~- •' of 1'e~sene 'when the deceased WP.s re-fu~_ling the stove. , He also roj ected : ;!1f beeause· \he deceased had ..given a;; un!:rue .a<,:count of ·one circumstance in ---:;~' C>Qn~~On with that version. The decec!lsed had claimed that during the , ·• ·,, fI\Qiden\ she was alone in the ki tchen'while the appellant was in thG room "iaeping and ihe children were outside.-. The learned _Ch#,.e~· Ju!J~ice found· · · .t( •·-· _ts, \Q be un,.ue because during t~~ __;ncident ~he· child~en W~.L"e inside ·with : e.lJ: taihe,, ~"d, ....therefore, !}e -came to- the con~lusioti ·thai: ..the story of ' 'i,.;· 'II d•eaaed did •o~ ~ound true.. · ·:._. " · ~. M,A. X,akha .who appeared for -the appellant' submitted ~)1at the ~-o-"ed ~~e.t Justice erred in law .in accepting th~. dying declaration of h~~deceased \hat t;he appellant set her on fir~~ There is me~it in this •~~~~tOt\. ~o say ime very least,. we think _that once 1the dece~sed was ~~d to have given an untrue account.respecting one.ve~sion Qf hor ~-l~aU'?fte tt was no longer safe to accept as true isnyona ot the · three -ar: cC!•~iona. .Por, • the dee.eased . was egu"!llly -capabl,e of giving an untrue acc~unt· ~;. . e1pe,~ng ;he other versions; and looking• at the,-totality ~f tha evidence .::,; , , ,~e 1ould l,e ao guarantee ·that tM.s cannot have happened. In rajccting · !!,! ·ve.rdon thet .the deceased had set herself on fire, the learned Chief ua~~Q.•On\ended that 1.t that were so, the appellant would have said so'but j~id 1110-•. W.i,th great respect. to the learned Chief· Ju~tice _this,~ in our :-< . it1tw;"-"d0et llOt · advance the. mattAr beyond ~e point we have· just 'stated that ·. :.~.- :tr\he eS,lfUllll~\ance, Of ~is t::ase there 1(1a~ no good. reas~n. for prefcri.ng· Ona _<;;~ ~"•~Qn. i;O · ihe Oth,eio. In saying so we sped.aJ.ly take into ae<:ount that the · :. ~ '?.~aed wu in a cdtical' ~tion ~-ts the 'time .sl1e is· allegad· to-th.ave fuade~".-::·; -~z.~elanUons. Th~ evidence o_f ~.• w.~ ~~~sa.. Pratap :iingh and _c~w. ~os _ _. f _ alc~ll \oge\}leJ' was to the e:ff_act that th~ deceased·~a:s in p~in, was practi- · al.S.~;.1.l'la~d:l.b1e ,and- was· not .i,n her prQp_er sense~ •. ; wi:J: think that -it ·would ,da~ge~ous.and quite unsafe tq re~y on any·statement m~de by the'doceased h wa,_ in 1;hat conditton. . : .• , . , . . ·. . ·. . .. .· . . . ;.,: '.t )-:::'.:p; ½(i~t: >-:~i:~i:it::;,\;i:~i:[}jj;,!1:,~. ,J'.·;.·~:,; ~~i;~) . · ~ ·• • 1:/..· ,•,•;•·· ~-~'lJ.-1'.1'-:,..J:r•··,.·1<~~, •. ~..--. .y:,--.,._,:; • . •, •• '< ,,~ ~,.~:'•~; '• •, .-~ '~;~ • . d j' d ..,;. ' . _. • ;. ,,-..... • ' of The learned Chief Justice then went on to consider the evidanc0 _:· chUdreJl• In connection with the dying declaration, he properly directed J. ' , .h.J.maelf that' the evidence of children could not corrObOrate the dying · '\';: .,, de·claration . .·' . . ' because that eviciui,c.:: .i.tself required -corroboration, citing . ' ' . •the caae of solu we Tatu v. R. · (1934) E.A.C.A. 183 •. However he went ~: · . . . ~1 ,. ·further and said that despite the rule that evidence which requires ~~·~,· . ''•corroboration cannot itself corrobr.-::ate, he found that the evidence of ' ' ; ;Said'-CP.W.12), one· of the children in. this case, wa• consonant or in ·' ·' .;. , ·Yi , • • • .- , ,' 7-e~re'ement with the version of the 'dying declaratio~ which he chose to :i/"'•e.fc:ept. We a.re not at all sure whut the lea.rned Chief Justice meant by sj', ,,this. We c:.annot· quite -reconcile that ObservatJ.on· with the rule in ~~~~S~lu 'l'ajgu',s case which he cites • . However, for our part since we have ·--·' it) ~.come to the conclusion that the said dying declaration was of no probative. ;~'... ;valu~, it follows i;Jll).t_ the question Of-i.ts corroboration no longer arise~ nd we 1hall only proceed to consider the children's evidence, independently• 6( the deelaration, with a view to seeing whether that evidence by itself 1 I• tor toge~er with some'other credible evidence could support the charga. ·I •' ~O\U\1el for the'appellant raised two main criticisms in connection with' t:he children's evidence, namely, that no voire dire examination WuS cOndUt;°l;ed lJefore receiving that ·evidence, and that there was no othor ~videMo ,o corroborate it. Three ~hildren gave evidence in this CQSQ .as P~W.10 (Ramzan), P.w.11 (Marz;;:,3J .':1nd P.W.12 (Saida), all-being the ." . . ·· - child1e11 ot the appellant and the deceased. The learned Chief Justice .,...f:I '' • ~ '•fouad that at the time of giving E'lVidence P.W.10 and P.W.11 were under ·:.:-?,2-~e~s Of age while P.W.12 was ab..>ut.12Ji years Old. He permitted P.w.10 · :,•a_nd PeW• l1 to give evidence without affirmation but L"ecOi:-ded P.-~.12• s ~~~idij;,.• after atfirming her. • '· .J_· In tha course of his judgement ha stated· .· the., S,11 · so dOing he had acted under the provisions of seation 11B of the ~vtden,e .. •, Decree (Cap.5) and section '.1.-lS of the Criminal ~ocedure .Decree (.Cap.14) t • The relevant-· part of what he--saic reads as follows:- "Niliporidhika chini ya kif,mq,.t 118 c",'l Evidence Decree (C~p.S) 1'uwa (watoto) wote watat'..l wa.,'1'-' ufahamu na akili za kutosha . . kuelewa maswala na kutoa me~:.. :-.iu y;.ike r,iliwakubali ~utoa ushahidi. Ramzan na Marzia ~ikuwalisha kiapo. Kitungu cha - ~ .c:ha.Crl.minal Procedure [;-><:ree (Cap.14). kinahitaji ~:shahidi wote katika kesi zo jinai uwe kwa kiapo ila Mahkama · inaweza kuchukua bila kiapo ushahidi w5 mtoto mdogo." · A fi:-ee translation of this reads:- ••••• /4 \ i>!.,-...,...,..,.._""""...,.._·~-•.. --.!....-~----,...,.. ·~ -.:... -- ~ 1" ' ~ .. ~ .... , '-. ,( ·:\~~6\,;;, C• -~·. :';, ·,:~.••: ••:··_. t 'fr:, '* .,- ._,./ ~ • •\ii, ......~ -- , 1', " ', ; • -C"f.-,1. . •~: ~~ • ' ~'"',. .~~·_., ~t:'":_.._.,:i !, ~ .....~ T..,~ . . ~. ~< •.•• ~..!j/''\':.r,._,•\.:•~ . ...,~ I •f 1 I • •• _, ..,., , '\,. ~ • .t'"~t 1·- 1: :::,'t.~ : t---·,.,~•,·<a;,, '~,\~,~~~- · ... )""'· J.(... ... ...,. , ,.• _ •• • r '•_: .. \-: . : t!-, ,~,,, .. •• r4 ♦ .;-.•:, ·~•~.. 1,- -. ,--; j-..• .t ......... ''I" • ...,.. • • • , ...... · _ ~. • - ,. .. l: •·~;,l(~:_f-,. . .../ ' ~ ~ ,. ~ "~ ~ ;:, ~ "Upon being sa_tisfied under .section 118 oi. the. Evidence 0.ecree · " ,7.'.:':: · .. (Cap.5) that all th~ three. (cl)ildren) are possessed Of suff- • . ~ ieient knowledge and intelligence to, underst_and questions _a~~ . :✓ ~ ,m. , to give answers thereto, :t admitted them to give evidence. ."· • ··:: ~-;_ , . Ramzan and· Marzia I did m."; a=firm them. Section 14S of the · · · , •~! : ~ · <;,riminal Procedure Decree (Cap.14) requi-res all the evid1;mce ·· 1 f ·--~1 ,. in c~im.inal cases to be upon. affirmation, provided the Court . : ,7· ·I . -~· may take with Out affirmation the' evidence Of a small child. II · •. 1 't, . .J ~{. • • • -Lakha bitterly complained that the reception of. that ev.i.dence was.; __.;..,,......,;. • - . _I -~~--.··;; .~ .-. .. .• ot prec:eded by any or sufficient investigation by the Court with a view , .,_ .~ t "" ~J.. . •·~ssesaing the children' i level of intelligence and .ability to undc~ .,_ , __ ,j/!: ,j. • . . . . . . I•' S: tand ·que,t;Lons put to them and the ans~~.£~. to those questionJ,· :tn the ; .-:-/-:. . .:: •·,.,,:. ,, --- - ·- ··--· , - \.r· i ircums1;enc:es Mr. Lakha submittad that the evidence so recorded was (-'-: . .,.1ther 1•~dm1ssible . or should be accorded no ·weight at all. In support . ·. \ _.'~.,." . ·. that view he cited the case of Kibangeny l'lrap KOlil v •. R. (19S9) - . - •. ...__ ,. '.r. *"'-i~. • • _92_,. . ... · ;I' • "'1- ... t..,,. ~ . I, .' . ,·-~"~< ~• } : I.t if pertinent :first of all to ·set out the pr~visions _of s'3ction . " • '., .., ,1"'· • • • ..J,,_'\:N;'. ~18 Of.the ividence Decree (Cap.S)_of Zanzibar which the learned Chief Justice~: t' ~""· ' . . . ' - . ,I, .. • 11' . . ~ relied upon to receive the QVidence of th~ three children gen~ral'ly. That ~✓{;-' .:~· .. ·-. . . . . . .· \l, _ect~o!l says:.. "' .· •'1 : ~_,,,.., · ·, 1 "lie • (1) All ~rsons shall be competent to testify ·unless · the ·eQu,t considers that they are prevented from understand~ ·. :r ~-~ -tng. the questions put to th•~m, or from giving rational. · ,.; ·answe&-s to those questLons, J:,y tender years, extreme old :_ ~ ":.i. age,. disease, whether of body or mind or any Other cause • ·- . · ·,;- ot the same kind._" ·____ ..,. .:- . , - J,. '· e· reGt Qf the .section is not relE?·,,--ilnt to the issue- at hand •.. In tho · :·:,:- ., .. ~~ • ·\ ~ f • -~· -:: ·.. ontext Qf the present case the sub-section is saying .in effect that . . :~=~ . ' . 1· _,._~"--·., _lthough every person is prima facie com~~l'.!_nt to g(_ve evidence,_ a child . ·_,,..; · ~Ould .. 110t ·be ad~tted- t~--~ive evidence ii' tho court 11$ satisfied· that "i/ . . ' "': / .. ~ ' > ........_: ~eaaon Of its tender age the child _does not understand the question.s .... ·. :·--~>_' ~ · ,~ o~ c:annot ·give rational answer's 'to., those questions, This means ., 1 '. •... _E•~ , thel'e must be . some m~terial by. way of a prelimina'ry examination Of -' · ? . -; ,..,; ,,/:: '· c:hild 011 which th~ court is to base ·its opinion ·or is to be satisfied ,· ' , - -~~f) c~Ud is or is_ not; prevE'lnt<::cl from unde.rstanding the quastions ;;ji~~ :·. -~~ t,· o.r. £rOns giving r!!tional. answers to those queaUons. · ----<·•<~;~ { } i -~ . . • ; ·.";i ~ . ~ -~f..t I ( ·.; .:ti,deed it· WO.).lld seem that the_ learned_ Chief Justice was aware of · -~d ~deJ:" thi~ sect.ion for him, to be so satisfied, and that is why ..: ':~!/, e ·the endorsement, as quoted ;,ibove, c:iting the releva~ law;. '·. ~; ·1, ,f ,;. ~ · ~ • ••.•• /s .. . l~.- ··.it "''!: ·r--~.:..J-.. ,.t-:_.~ ~ -;-;~~---- >; I a , ,o;, "':-.·· ... ,·., ...... ~- . -~~--- RO ;. ... ~~ •~ •• ~•,j . . .,,,·,\,., .:p\H•I . f' ' ~~ • ....... ~ ;~.'.J . ·.. .. t • , • • . •?t, ·:>': :. ·: : i . .:..~. --· -- -·- .·-:---· ."-. ' :. . ~ . .. . ,~ ' • t~"t '"i~ • I....'-\ '• -'I- _,...,._ • ~ -t~,t, , .,. • ~1-,;\ ~, • J • f .... .~ •• • • • f ~ ~"'"'•li~--· ~~-~ ·"~~--~ t~~·.,t.. 11.· ! '·, tJrl ..·-.tj.. -. \,4 \ ..... . :::,;.;·f~..-t~""'-r;:{.i' ,... -t.: • i~.... ,. ·.,~tl;, .. .,<j,~:;_:~..~:-_;;r:.: ;'~:.:,.~,..~~ .,.,: ·_,•; .,,. •..•·it .?7'-:t, .. 1 made that endOrsernent only in the cou~~ of the judgement.· This ~.. <where.he went wrong; he ought to have made it ea~lier. - . ·•1· . · ·/endorsement which i_s to follow upon a p;re1;m1naey examin&"Oll should ~ob~ exact, • , •· ' I ·..O .•' ·'• .,._. . ·the actual· recording-of·the witi,ess•a evidence ede . ~o th-'ll:. in the t t:he .c.ow,,t. coaaid,ars,. Ot!' i& •o.ti£t'1ad- that ~ ehpd 1~ l'.IO'. ~etcn; . .• •. . • I . ..• • ·l stify at all then ·it should proceed i;O ~x.cslud,o, 'tha •Uld fi:On\ giving· .-i nee. - Sec~ion '14S of the Criminal FrocedU.IPG il-ecn~ -<Cep.t4) which Justice ~lied up0:l t:c roceJ.ve the evidenae o-,· p.,W. U ~ e,ffi~ticn· :°'-' and ·that of P.W.10 and P.W.11 withOut eff~rm&:iOft ~das~ '.''145~.·-~very w1tneas in any crimiRal cause 0.t' matter .ehall be examined Ul)QJ\ oath or ef:ti.r:-mation, and the cOI.U"t ~#Ore whJ..ch any w~tne1s .i,,a.J.1 a.p.peai" shall haye f u l l ~ ~nd autno~Uy to adJI\W~ the usual -ca-th oe;- u•~n• P~vided ·tha.t_.the court may .a-t-..,any time, if it thin~s i~ r just and .exp~diant. .(fo~ reas<)?l.,1 to be reco_rded in t_he p.l!'OCaad-. ings}, ta~e without oath the eyid~ Qf any ~ n decl.a.l:ing ·that the 4&aki11g of any oath wh~eve,'- is aec.QJ:'ding t.0 h~s · religioua belief u~l~wtul, or who by ie&i.on-ot irnmatu»e age or want Qf ,e11giQua •eliet 4>Uthi not, in the opinion Qf th3 cou;t, \O i. 1 admi "ed to give evidel'lce on oa t11; the lac t. of • the evidenee ~.tag beeA ao taken ~ing also recorded in th~ p.rO<;eediHttll. t" • • '~; ~nee: again 11 \h~_ coa•ext of this c:ase the p,ovision means·· that although ";~he eviden,e of witnEt1sea in criminal c:ases is receiveable upon affi.rma- :t.~~n, the 111ouai may admit a c:hild to give evidence without affirmation 1~,• f'?r rea&Ons to be recoi;ded, the court is. satisfied that· by· reason 8£ ~ts imma;u.e .age the child ought not be admitted to give its-~vidence .~pon ~ffir'l'!l~\j.on. As under the provisions of° section 118 of the 8vidcnce .ic~ee _dis~u,sed ea&-lier, this nece$sarily means_ that, there must be, a: ·r ·.is~l~minaty examinotion 0f the child on which the· Court shall,b~se its·· pinion ,·r whei}le~ . o.r . not the c:hild shOuld be atti.rmed. If~ on the info,rmation . tore it and ·.;io,e • . fez &-easons to be rec:Prded; the. Court is satisfi~d .thc:it by J' .• . • of 1.is i,mniature~ age the child oug~t--not ,to be affi~riied, then tJ:ifi.: · · ·. ." t should proeeed-' to receive the evidence of ~uch child wi thoU:t affirm- . .... . :tf,•on th•:? other hand, the e0,1rt 1s satisfied that the: child, pite-its immature ege, should !iVe evidel'lee upol'l ai'fu,ma1t.1,on _thtin it ould accozdil'lgly proceed to admit such child to.give i~s e~j,d~nce upon . . ";\ .. - . f~,f"atiOI\-. 4gun ~i'"l,ing ~ ~a.sons ~Q• dQing se. L ••••·.;s .,, . - ~. ":"..,._.,...-:-......... ·- • J:¢• - • • • '';:~~ ... ·:~•·~,.•~:;·~~-.: ...... a , . ....~ 1:-r..·;.,,,;.;~Jr.ii_,_ illl.l:IZ.illilU.a-;.:llid~Rillillltillli1-atldlli..i-::~~~:lt,..,_·-'_;_'··.:;.· .:. ··:.'....:':........:....;.:.:... ·/ 'I' // ~ As intimated earl·:.er, the :.2ar:,~d Chi,,;· Jusi:ice attempted to give ~.! 'li his reasons for allowing P.W.10 and P.H.11 t:o ,:;-ive evidence not upon ·',1''·_ affirmation but, again as p0:!!'1ted •·)1rr before, -er.;.,; was don~ only in the course Of the judgemer:it and it was nc-·: prec..:, ·-'"G ::.:· a:· . .,: p::eliminary exanq.nation of the children. Wh?.·:. '·.. .; more, the· lt,.· .::1ed Chief Justice (I I 1 gave no reason whatsoever why he ->·. :.,.led to recei·.re upon affirmation the . 1 evidence of P.W.'12 who, beinq of tiH" Rppare:r:-: ,,0e o·" only 12½ r~ars, ·-•, was clearly a child of tender y•~ar.s. ,,1 f• While i t is apparent that -~L ;irovisJ.c;, c•:'· :.;ec-tion 118 of the Evidence Decree (Cap.5) and the C., .. r:-,:.nal P;:·cceot:."."'~ ;),:;cree (Cap.'14) of Zanzibar are complimentary, i t sef:i,J . -, d.esira':::c.e Le,:.:<~ to summariza bri~fly on the combined ·operation of the tw:J prov:isj_ o;,", respecting· th-~ •.~vidence '~,, .~J I of children of tender year:::, as fo1::0;1s:- Wher. a child of tender years is presented before the cou~ t as a p.cospec:t'..1:·•·'' w:·-- ::•,:,-~ss in a criminal case, GJ)e court is to conduct a pt""liminar::1 2xam>.,,,h •.,· · '.fiTE-':, with a view to being satisfied whether in the liqht of i.ts tend>'!;. age the child is 1 rendered incompetent to test:Lfy, that is, w,·wt:;wr :.:he child is prevented ;:J from understanding the questions pu~ to i t or from gi.ving rational answers to those questions. If the court is ::;o satisfied, then i t should proceed to exclude the child !"!:Om givi.r;q P.71 •.·Jencfl at all a-:.n that would be the end of the matter. If, however. the c:-ourt :Ls "-'.1+;i_ s-fied that thd child f 1 is competent to testify then i t shC~1ld go fi:~tCIP.!: in its preliminary ,I examination with a view to bf.'inc; ,: .,.isfied fur.t.h.,"· whethP.r or not the I child, .byr.reason of'.its ;,,:,.,: ..c. . ··t ·not---.:-.o £le sworn or affirmed I 'before •it gives thd evidence, "!:.::: 'Lh',! c,)uri:- :i.s satisfied in favo:.lr of an ! oath or affirmation then it ·•;houlr-i ,-.·,::ordir_.,_,-1 y p;·oceed to receive that •J ·vidence upon oath or :;,£firm,~ t :i.0;,: ·_ :: it i,, .1~;5. t-:L sf- ied otherwi s~ th-:~n i t ·~ \.. ;hould accordingly pro-::eed to ad:n:i. i: the ·child' ,'. ,2vidP.nce with out oath or affirmation, in either case giving :c,:-.asons -;:o~. ,..1Jor,ting the particular course. At first Mr. Lakha took the vi('>w that since the procedure as out- lined above was by and large r:0t comp}.ied w.·V:h wJ-;er1 recording the I_· • evidence of the three children, then U·,e e,. J "r--•:::--' cf ·:he said children ~ . was rendered inadmissible and shoulr· be ig::c1:,~,:1 a,; a result. However, i I C on second_thoughts he rightly conceded that such error did not render ~ C that evidence inadmissible but only affected the reliability of, or the I P- • we-ight to be attached -co, such evinen::e. ~ ••••• /7 • . _,: ~~ ••.•• ;o ~...:..:.:.::.:....:,..k,~:f:_j.~·--- · · - ~ - ! . - ~ · : · - ~ - - , - ~ ~ - -- :; ~. - f .·:.• ·/ / 7 After properly·-directing himself ·o-ri--the law as to the n~:~d for · corroboration of the evid~nce of children, th~ learned Chief Justice found that the evidence of the three children was duly corroborated. The -children's evidence was to the effect that the appellant had poured I • I kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. It is to be remembered -:~1 that this evidence was in agreement with one of the threP. versions of ·] the dying declarat~on of the dace_ased. The corroborating circumstances . ~ as found by the learned Chie:f Justice _ware:- The quarrel betwe'?n the appellant and the deceased over tht• rice which preceded the burning, the extensive burns sufff!red by the dP.ceased all over the body, laclc of any evidence that th~ stove exploded or erupted and the presence at the seen~ of crime of th~ three children whose evidence it was sought to corroborate. Mr. Lakhe submitted th~t none of these circumstancas amounted to co:-roboration. We agree. \~e think that in law it cannot properly be aaid that the said quarrel corroborated th•• childran' s evidence any more than it corroborate-id tht1 oth<~r equally plausiblH versi~n of, or r~_~sertion in, thit deceased' s dying declaration that she sC?t fire to herself after the appellant had pourP-d kerosene on her following the quarrel. Xn other words, th~ fact that there was a quarrel do~s not necessarily tend to connect the appellant with the burning of tha deceased --;-~ - - because the burning could well have been caused Otherwi&P. than by thr~ appellant some time after thf~ quarrel had takP.n placP.. The sam~ is true of the fact that tho de~eaaed had suffered extensive burns. Again thDt fact does nQt co:-roborate thP. ch_;_: ___ ;.:.:i' s evidence that thfl app'lllant oet fire to the doceased any more than it corroborates the other available version that the deceas1!d set firf? to herself. Th(~ dP.ceiued collld have I 'l equally suftered extensive burr.s w:-,;-:har th~ fire was set by the appellant ~r by herae~f after the kerosene was pourP.d on her. On th'! cont-antion •I ·()lrfat there wa, no evidence of the stov~ having ~xploded or erupt~d, even assuming ~ha\ auch conttmtion was valid, it mP.rely serves to discredit one Of the 1hi-ee available versions of how the incident happanad, bu·t it does not 1heraby corroborate one or the othnr of the remaining versions. No~ can it v~lidly be said that the presence oft~~ children at the sctJ'e ft~Ce•sarily--provided corrobor~tion of their own account of how the incident happened. Such prP.SP.nce does not render their account ,-;- , • 1I ·any more P~Q•aale than it renders probable the other available varsions . ~f the ino1dent; and in the circumstances the burning of the d9c~3sed ► could have been caused otherwise than by thP- apl)ellant but tn th~ I .. presence of those ~hildren • • •••• /8 . ' 'lhe matter took a more interesti,;g turn ·when ·i-!r., 'Hamidi l'bh.:i.mud, • •,: '_ • • • V l. • • • •· j' ' • : •, • l , e ~ Sta~ ;Att.~ .appearing for tne· ·state, ·submi~t~.d that in any even\ the ,,1al judge was not.bound by the rule requiring, ~~rqti.on Of th1ldren•,· evidence. ~n &uppQrt Of . t.hi s view he 'citod .the pi:ov:t,.sions ~f aec'G.Qft ·• ·.Qt' P . ¥ : ~ ~ t \ l Dee1ee N0~ 'it. of. 1s69·~i.Qh .. . rQe.dw;'? . ~ ·.; \ ) .:~1 . "'• th.S c;our.t; shall f(?.t:11\Ula te its own ~ u r e a~d ~ul,e s . ; ·I . Qf ~di;nc;e a~d ~hc,i;+ ~ t -~ ~ by ;-1iJ,e~ .. ; > f ; ~ e . g" eyj,.denc:4! -4°"¥1ried i_n any a.>Us~1n9 :+a.we~,, · · · . .1 ·, r . He &.,GnQUlillY -c:ontel'l~ed ·that·it'was ope!'-tO the·J,earned Chief' Justice, •~ng ",ir-.na~ -~,ov1..t~,.. t.o. depa.t"t 'f'~ - ~ , : ~ ~ i r i l ' l g ~ba.rnti.On Qf •hUdren•• ~~e~e. • Thh. l'(l,att~r ',fas ._deal,~ ~i~ a, ;engtry i_J\ 'fmj,ul ~ - ,N9, ::e~ 'Qf.~ 191~: Whi:ch we '.neud·d~ing -~thi\ -~~~~ ·:i~ssions a -\}\e ~u~t and· -ii. whj,.t.h--s.u¥an-tially :..,he,. .rahad. it.'·j,s· ., ~am~:-~91~.;;a!;I, ftQi \J\\~l\(jed ,~ _re!;,apt~~f~t~ ~~re what we &aid 11'\ .i;h~t:· :c:a•~• '. Sl.ltticc 1t iQ 1,ay tha; .i,.~ ·thi4 ~ase the lea~ned Chie~,4us.&4,~e ~ade i~ very ~lear °CJle; he wa• a1~.1,n9 Uftdal' ::t}:\e flll'C>Vi~~ ~ ·t~· ~yi~~ ~~a {<;ap,5), ... I ' ,M ~"4l\ JfQ<:~~ ~a~ (fap 1 ~1! ·,.an~ Jhe -Q~th• 'oe~,e~ f~ap.7) Qt ~e. t,~w~. 9f ZaJ'.l•.1.lta; and. th.e. c::ase ~aw J>$;f~ai1";1.r,ig tj:\eret9.; · .so tl'\at ·~e quae'e.i,9~_ 9f hh ~ayil\(] a~teo, pnde:;: cSOrne.~ ~.thaf se~,. ft- r.~~?~.; q.Qos _.i,;ca11y a,~se. ~ A~a•~' ffO.m _the dying deci'a~~tion' o! the· th;! avidencc dtiea;~i-~nd Qf lhUd,en, . there\ was. no 9~her eyiden~e,;-teng~~Jr }O imp}-.i,.99t!3 th<? I I i- i,ppell.an\ wi~ i;he qffenc;:e' c;:niu;-ge·d:. '-··But.: a'i' stis,ed ear-lie-!!'',· no weight t I • • I 't . -., .\ ·f ·• f • • .; •, • 1•~ _- ~ • •',; ./f I at a11 ,ould b.;i aj\ached to the dying .decla.ration and, _as tho learned I 1· <;hiel J,ust;ce p~9pei_:!.y d!~ec:ted hil!lself., the. evid.enfe ·. Of: t,tle, ch4,ldrcn c_~r.!'\Qt b~ -?C~4, ~P9!>· i.l:'I ~h~ al)sence o,t, C?Pr~~Q~r.~~if'lt. _?oyi. we, ~re ~~- -.;\isfhd ~h~t j~e ~y.iden~e so far, addu~ed ~i? ~!1~-~ $~?~:,. S~f?1.ciOn on I tlle appeU~n~;as,,~h•(.,ulprit. but;.tJ:iat it fell,, •l'l,f.f 9;• ~e-, ~tandard f,•. Of pw;JQf. 1equ+;ed +n a c;~iminal <;.ase., · I!' th~ ~ve'1,.~· lfi -~l~9~. th~ .?-PP.9c11_, . q~sh- . \h,.e ~Qny.~c~j,.9n.. . . ., t· a~Q set aside the .. sentP.nce. .. - . --- . . .. ,. It ,4:s~•.f\;rther- ordcrec;l ' . ·' . ·, • jha\ the llf?P~~l.,nt . ¥ $&t. f~ec foclhw~.~-Ul'li~~.~-1,$~--Q~~~1.s$!_~.lawfully ;: he\d in 1u•torYt ., . ,,s,. ·; ;,..] p.- day '?f I l F. NYALALI f CHIEF JUS'?ICE ;,,1 • I -~ ·l A. MUSTAFA ·JUSTICE OF APP~A~ L :.«. MAKA ME JUSTICE OF APPEAL R.H. KISANGA JUSTICE OF APPEAL A.M.A. OMA JUSTICE · OF_ APPEAL R 1' ~_FiUY· fl\lS'e w~ is a true copy ot .. . .,:. ', t:1... ' . ., ,, :l' I. ~--_ __ _ ~ ... :' ~ .- '' <. • ,. ;\ i,J;:;(/• 't-~jd'· ·;_:~~-- ' : . } ; -.,: . ,.{\ ;·:. ~:::::.-. ·;:: : : h,,1:..i.. ~ "• 'I-., ,._... -. "'"'' ~ 't -:-, ,. •' ;, . ◄ - ,,.,.. • ... ~ - •"~.J. • ~ • • ~ ':i:~ \, ·_;i f •