19720301 TZHC Dar es salaam2

'S IN THE 11IB OOUWJ OP TAIG01A Li' DARS 8ALAAN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 635 OF 1971 OrinaI Oriinal Case No, 74 of 1911 O' the District Court of &ong5a Dttriot at 8ongea before L.J.R, Obua, sq., Eesident rnagi stz'ate NASANX MO1LkMED • •.• • ••• ••• • • • s • , : S*S• APPILLINT orsue TE I*PUBLIC •,. .•.,......•s.. ...•.•...•,• .flEPONDNT 4G: Causing grievous harm cs 223 of, the Penal Code.& SAIDI, C.J. - The appeal in this oaee is brought against the eonviction of the apo1lant for causIng grievous harm to one .Sudi Mohamed by stabbing him With a a'iife on the chin on 1th Iazb, 171 at Euvuina Village in Songea. The stabbing, though denied by the appellant, was witnessed by three other persons who testified to this effect in the 1wer court. The eLdence shows that a quarrel had ensued at a ponibe partr where bc1h the appellant and oop1sinant were present. The 3 witnesses were also present. It is not exactly clear how the quarrel started but it appears that the appeilant bore rudgo egainst the complainant and one of the witnøsseø, Ibrahim Rashid, P.W,2. This is born out from the appellant's own evidence at his trial, The appellant was not in good terms with the couplaiwant as the complainant had. broken his engaoment to one lads and then married her himself. Then the appellant engaged another lady and married her but Ibrahim conmitted adulterl with her, Now one the matria1 daj some talk started about the adultery and the appellant was blamed for forgiving Thraiiin, It was during this talk at the pombe party the appellant first slapped the complainant and later obased and stabbed him on the chin with a kniTh. Per doing so the appellant pleads provocation from the words spken by the complainant at the pombe party. One of the witnesses, auma Hussein, P.W.4, admitted that a complaint of adultez7 between Ibrabim and the appellant's wife had been reported some days before that day and on that occasion the complainant had tried to make the appellant a lauthg stock for being so lenient or the issue of adultery with his Lfe. 2. z oula agree that the iaint had tried to provoke the appellent at the perty Imowing 'vrt well that they were not in goo8L terms after interfering with his proosod rnrrIige to one of the ladiee referred to (her G We not mentioned), wever the use of a 1ife would not be .jutifiefi as oet roquent7 death resulte frcrn such .type of aults.' in tht circumstancesI diiss the appeal against the conviction but I would z'edae the prison to= to one of months. The order for compenmitionremainz unaisturbe. Delivered in Court At Dr cc alaam thia .1st dr of 1areh, 1912. (A. SAIDI) CFIE usrio tL L