19760601 TZHC Dodoma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (DODOMA REGISY) CRIMrNALSSIONS CASE NO0 57OF 1976 THEREPUBLIC VERSUS A.8578 D/.CPL SHABAN BOBI .M ti R D 196 of the Penal Code. J U D G M E N T CHIPETA, AG J. .: The accused, No. A.8578 Detective Crpora1 ShabaniBohi, stands charge1 with the offence of Murder c/s196 of the Penal. Code., The charge alleges that on or about lth August, 1975, the accused murdeted Egnita d/o Nlimba at KOngwa, in Dodorna Region. It is not in dispute that a wbman by the name of Egnit. (or Agnita) d/o Mlimba is dead. It is also not in dispute that she died aviolent death at the hands of the accused. The. only questiori..for determination is whether.the killing ofthe deceasd by the accusa. amounted to the offenceof murder as alleged by the prosecution, or to some other offence, or no offence at all. To prove the charge, the prosecution called a total of ten witnesses The evidence of Grace d/o Ie1eselo (P.401) is that she is the daughter: of the deceaped Egni€ d/o Mlimba. During the evening of 16th August,.1975 shewasworking in a pombe shop at Kongwa. The accused, who was a police detective corporal at Kongwa, was driking local liquor a the prnbe shop.. Later that evening the accused caught her by the neck and said that . Kongwa Women were proud and that they would see him that day.. As he did so, he broke Grace 1 s (P.W.l) beads.which she was wearing round her neck. Grace then ran awayfrom the accused and jent to her.. mother the deceaëd The accused, howevr, fo1lowd her there. When. the deceased. asked the.. .accusd why he was following Grace (P.W.i) the accused abused the deceased, spat in her face, and felled her_ to the grounds The deceased then stood up and said that she was . . going to report the matter to police. The deceased then left acconpanied by Silvester (P.W.2)1, who wag her paramour, and Dickson (P.W.3), who was her son-mn-law. Grace (P0w.1) did not go with them. Tha±was her evidence in-chief. S In cross-examinaton, howeer,. Gzr' (?oW.) said ..that the accused told the deceased that the, beads were broken by bad luck, . S. . . : . .../ 2 -2- lo but the deceased was not satisfied with what the accused had said, and so the accused and the deceased started to quarrel 0 Grace (P; 1) went on to say that the deceased was annoyed when she fell down, and that she had then stood up and hit the accused with her torch. When the deceased tried to hit the accuped the second time, the accused snatched the torch from her and threw it out. Grace went on to say that when the deceased and the accused were quarrelling people intervened.' The evidence of Silvester Buneko (P.W2) is that at about $.00 p.m. he and the deceased went into the pombe shop to drink. When they entered the pombe shop they fourd the accused holding Grace (P.W.l), The accused abused the deceased, told the'ceased to go away, spat on her face, and felled her to the ground0 He then sñatched he torch from her and th1ew it away. The deceased stood up and said she 'was going to poIié station to lodge a complaint against the accused. Actording to the evidence.pf... Silvester (P.W.2) no one intervenec, and the deceased did not e€iate against the accused 'during the whole i -icdent. ilvesterien't on to say that he., the dqceased ; ,, and Dickson (P.W.3) then left.for the police station wh&chisles than half a mile away pombe shop (it is exactly 661 yards away). While they were on the way, the accused came, runnitig towards the police station.' He passed thea without saying 'a word to them and they too did not talk to him nor were they, talking: among themselves. When they were behind the police quarters but withi" the compound of thke police quarters they saw the accused coming 'towards them as hQ wi'ldeda.nain his right hand. They started to run away, for their safety and the accused chased them. He ran after Silvestcr, (P.w.2) who, however, manag€.d to ran away. The accused then turned on Dicksoi P.W3) who also ran away from him. So he turned on the deceased. He chased her as she raied an al- arm. He cut her at the bacc .of the head with the panga. She ran a few paces and fell down. While'shewasying on the ground he'-ôut her again, this time on the forehead'. Neither Silvester hiise1f, nor Dickson (P.1.3) nor police of.ficerwho came out of the ;pol&ce station and saw what was happening dared approach the accused t rescue the deceased. She died shortly after that just where. shehad falln. The wife of the accused (D.W.l) came and held the accused aid:.tol.d, him not assault the, deceased anymore. She then led hith to their houe. In cross-examination, Silvester (P.W.2) told the couit that the accused must have taken a lot of alcoh.ql on that day and that his behaviour that evening was not his normal behaviour. The p accused is said to have eenumping about, and at one stage he _.3_ assaulted a' woman by lifting her up. Acdrding to Silvester (P9W.2) the accused had been dr 'iking at the pombe shop from about 6p.m. " The evidenceàf' Dickson Mauléi :(P.w03) is that at about 7 p.m. that evening he went to the pombe shop. While • headr±nkirig, he heard the decesed shouting saying that • she ws gointo report the accused topolióa station because 'the, accused-had abused. her-and felled, her to the ground. Diccsen(P.W.3) decided to 'go ith them as it as'.not good for the • two of t.Iwm';that is, the deceased and Silvestr (.'Wo2),'to • \al k al one S. . •, On their way. to police station, he saw the accused runn.ng towards -them. Hep.ssed them without saying • a word, and they too did' not talk to hirr The deceased then said they nust hurry up because she feared that the accusc d might be the first tO report at the police station. When they came to the hedge surrounding the police quarters,. he saw the accused approaching them'as he wlded a panga in his ri,git' hand. They all started to run away and the accused h'sed them. The accused ran after Silvester (P.W.2) but:: Silvester managed to run away. The accused then turned to DicksonP.W.a) who also managed to run away. He thea tLrned on the eceased. 'Although •th& de'ceased(tried 'to run awayç the accused mat.her with thé.panga at the bciof the head and she fell dOwn. He:then cut her agaifl rofl the forehead.' The accusedts wife came to the scetiê and caught him and led him away. The deceased died onthe.spot. ' •: ', .' ' . In cross—examination, this witness (P.W.3) admitted that they had been talking as they were walking, but he denied a suggestion that the deceased was uttering abuses. • The evidence of I',, C. Ernest (p,W.4) is that .whid he was on d,utyin thepolce Station with two colleagues,hu:hard noises outside. Hethen went out with his colleagues and the accused cut the deceased with a panga as the' deceased ran about helplessly. 'When P.C. Ernet'(P.W.'t) tried to approach: the accused, the' accused came towards him and so"the witness and his colleagues ran 'back into the police station By the time P. C. Ernest (P.'J.4) came out of th'olice station again, apparently armed with a gun, the accused and his wife were walking away, towards their house with: the dccua'd?dI's*wife carrying the panga According to,?. C.-Ernest (P.W.4), when the accused was arrested later that night hb appeared to.be drunk but not,'too, drunk. Sergeant—Major Pàulp. 'Pw.5) t ,old the court , that at about 9 p a m., that night, while he was in his hous,, he heard'eople 660/4 - 4 - making noise.. He went out with a torch to investigate. When he was about 30 paces from the police station he saw the deceased. When. he''âkéd her she said Shabani (the accused).,wanted to kill her6 Paulo (P.W.5) fl 1ashed a torch and saw the accused wding a panga and coming towards him, Paulo (P.W.5) then rai- away foç his safety and hid himself behind. aQrry which was :P4 nearby. While he ias behind the lorry he 'heard a woman crying out "Shabani, You are killing me". ?aulo (P.W.5) then went there and found the dece'ased lying down. He saw that she' had injuries on the hed. The accused was arrested later that ,nig1 - t and his wife showed Gedi'.Mtei'(P'.t7), who was the officer Commanding Npwapwa district, where she had hiddet:. the panga. The panga was buried in sand at the back,.bf the accused's house. Also seized from: the accused's house'were accusEd's clothes which were wet and appea to have be-en' -re.cently washed. ' ,n the following day the accused made an.extra—judicial statement to a justice of the pda'ce one Joseph Kayombo (P.W.6) a distric€ magistrate at Kongwa. : .Th his extra—judicial statement, , which was, read' out and tendered in court after learned defence councel had raised no objèction,.,toi,jhe accused said that while he was at the pornbe shop, he:' and'Grace' (P.W..l) started to play. .In, the coure of playe... be-a,d:s ofi Grace got brOken and she started .tq cry,. He tried to p1ei wr±h her that t Was by bad luck b4. Grco continue4 t9 cry. Thereupon the deceascd caine therE and asked what the acc.used'h'ád , done to G"ace (P.,Wl). Although the accused '€ridto tell the:de&sed"that it was by bad luck. that:Grace's.' beads got broken in the course of playing, the deceased got annoyed and :u8ed 'he accused by calling hm all sorts of naxre and, saying that accued's mother as a fool, and that he was,, boasting because .'he'wa polie officer. The, accused pleaded with theeceased to forgive him, but she continued to abuse him. She then spat on, his face,' and hit him with a torch on the ,sho,ulder.". W1-'en s tried to hit him the second time, he snatched the torch from her and threw it out.. Thereupon, the decased, • Grace.' (P.W.l) Silvester (P.w.-2), Dicksdri - '(P'W.) rid 'a sister of Grace, started to assault him, but'.peop'le' intervened. After that he st'ayed for a whle.and then left fr'home.' On the wayhorne', hound the deceased, Silveste. (P.W2). and Dickson (P-.W.3)'. They were 'still shouting saying: '"Policel 'S Police' what is police?" He again tried to plead wit1 the deceased, but she became eveff more annoyed. So he left thcm and went to hs.huse',: While he was in his jiouse, lie. he1 her still shouting, abuses-. ' He thoüht of how he, had been abused and was,,,.,: assaulted and the factthat she was now going to report him to police. He last his temper and, without knowing what he was doing, he found - that he had cut the aeceased With a pariga. He added that he had lost his temper, was drunk, and did not know who of those people he had cutv with the pariga. All the prosecutibn witnesses tetified that accused had never quare,lled with the deceased, nor with any. f the relativos of the deceased before that day, and that the conduct of the accused that niht urprised them e The doctor who did the autopsy on the body of the deceased oberved a, deep 5-inch long cut wouzd .onthe head extending from the right lobe of ear through the right eye, nasal bone, and extended in depth to the brain tissue. The right eye was also lacer.ated.,'Thére was another cut wound measuing4 inches ½ an inch xend.ng from the 'po&erIor part of the:rih€e•r through the mastoid bone to the occipital bone 0 In the opiuon CE he doctor, the,,ause of death of the deceased were the evere cuts on the bead :and bleeding. The a - cused gave his defence on oath. He said that on that da'. he went to the pone shop at 6p.m. He drunk local liqu4r there until at about 0.30 p.m. ThenGrace . . .. S S. came from behind him and tickled him by the loins. He tugged at the collar of her dres,.- andèhe told him he had broken her. beads. She started to.. cry and cpntinued to cry although he pleaded with her that it was by bd luck tand ofered to pay, for it. The deceased, -iho was sitting nearby, then asked the accused why he/told the deceased that he and Gracehadbeen playing and that.Grace's beads got broken by bad luck, the deceased became angry and started to abuse him telling jum that he was treating people like that because he was a'police officer. She went on to abus the accUsed by calling him a fool and saying thdt his mother ought not to be proud becauseshe had given birth to such rubbish. She then spat on his face and hit him with a torch on the shoulder. When she wanted to hIt him thsecond time, he anatched the torch. from her .andthrew it outsid.. Then the deceased, drace(P.W.l), Silvester P.W.2) Dickson (P.W.3)., and a sistei- of Gae, started to assault.him. As the accused retreate.d in thef act of the assault, he fell over a and sustained, a bruise on the left leg. Here I wilLpose'to remark that beth the justice ot the peace (P.W. 6) and the doctor who examined the accused observed . bruise on the accused's left leg. The accused went on to say that people intervened and stOpped the fight. . There after, he stayed for a while, drunk some more alcohol, and then ieft for home. Ox the way he found the deceased, Silvester (P.W.2), and Dickson (P.W.3). He heard the deceased still shouting abuses. When he again pleaded with the 6 deceased to. forget the matter, she abised him the ñiore. He left them' and went to his house.. After about ten minutes, and while he Was in his houses he heard the deceased shouting: "Come out of where you are.and meet your fellow men? The man who..made:yox'a police officer hadno better people to employ •.w.' ... The accused went on to say, that on hearing that he started to lose Iiis temper and began :t0 shed, tears. His wife asked him who was uttering abuses outside, but he could not reply. The accused concluded by ' saying that the next thing he noticed was that his wife had coyght him and told him that he had killed somecne. Then the panga fell off his hand. The accused added that on the,day' in'qu(--, stidn,'which was aSaturday, he had taken more alcohol than usual, and ht it was the alcohol, the abuses, and the assault 'on .himr.that'hàd caused him toyls&.hi's' temper. He denid that he had iistticted his wife towash:his clothes or to hide the panga. flawa d/ Jurna *D.W.l), who is the Wife of the accused, told the Court that- the accused returned home at about 9p.m. She then went to fetcl Eobd'fton the kitchen andheard" people uttering abuses. She asked the accused who those people were. But the ) a cused did not..anser. He just kept quie,t-.and sthredwith wide open eyes. He then iSeed outside. Then he went into the bed—room " 'stormed • and shortly after, out of the house. ( 'She followed him, but by, thetime she arrived at the scene the accused had already cut the dtçased with a panga. She caught him and the panga fell off his hands. She then picked up the panga and le accused to t their hOuse. She hid the panga' behind the house and washed"th accused's clothes whitt she gaw had bloodstains. Later she ii,6we'dP.W.8 where she had bu,tried the panga. She denied the suggestion that she buzried the panga and washed the clothes of the accused on the instrUttins of the accused. She ins.sted that she did so out of her wfl chice. In his fal submission, Mr. chambakare, lerned counsel for . th e..defence submitted that the evidence of i'.W.l, P.W.2, and - ' ,. , , p ' 3 was too good to be' belIeved, and that; it was'tth li'kly that .W.' these witnesses, who'er in one way or ,another'e'1&'èd'to the deceased, could have behaved the way they claim to have done at the time the deceased was, -allegedy assaulted by the accused at the pombé shop, and while they were on their , way to' the police station.. In his submission, these ithessés were not tellirig'the-truêth, and he invited the .Courtto accept thd defence story. ..'' The prosecution's witnesses, in his submxssior, so contradicted one anOther as to render their evidence not believable. Learned counsel invited the' cburt to believe that accused had been dririking, that he was abused and assaulted at the pombe shop, that -7- he ws abused on his way to his house, that the deceased continued to utter abuses within the:police' compound, and that thistn of abuses amounted to grave provocation 'hich caused the.accused to ldse his €mper and, without knowing what he was doing, he went out of hi§ house and cut the deceased 'with a panga. In learned 'defence counsel 's submission., the prosecution 's evidence that the withe'ssés 'fund the accused's behaviour as abnormal, and that the accused dropped the panga and'.did- not attempt to run away, showd that the accused had.. not intended to cause the death of the eeased, and so the acts: of the accused came under the provision of sections' 2'1 and 202 of the Penal Code, and that the time wa too short for the accusedto cool down taking into consideration the short distance between .the.accüsed's house and the pombe shop. On this point he relidon the case of Mama Thuku v R. 1965) E.A. 496, Mr. Kinaboi,7 learned state attorney for the Republic, submtted'that considering- the nature of the weapon usCd G the part of the body that was attcced, the amount of force used, the fact that the accused collected the panga from his house and pursued the deceasd Who was 72 x arda i away from his house, and in th th'sencè of proiocation, the icil .ling was not only unlawful., but with malie aforethought within the meaning of setion 200 of the Penal Code, Theg Ieaned state, attorney .invitd the Court to accept the evidence of P.W.1, P'.'J.2, and PW.3 as the true account of what hppehed that •night In his submission the c6rtrád1ctions in the'evidence of these witnesses were not material and that the Court should 41 irto 'donidératin not only the circumstances in which the evnts happened $ but al .so the fact that the 'wi'tnes'es were and unsophistiated peasants.. Finally, lc"rned state attorney submitted that there was no provocation, and that in considering whethcr thc reasonable man would, In the ci -cuipstance' have acted'the way the accused did, the Court should take thereasonahle man in this case to be a reason- able police officer. After my summing up to the 'assessors,, the first gentleman assessor found as a fact that,the aècusd was assaulted .So heY' found the 'accused guilty of ;'nan'slaughter. The seo'nd rentleman assessor found as a fact that the accused had taken a lot of alcohol at the pombe shop, and that made him quarrelsome and that the deceased caused ,'he,accused to be méntal.y affected. In his opinion, the accused met bad luck and'that he did not intend, to do the act. The second, gentiemar'asses's6r; however, did not say if he' found the accused guilty of 'manslaiighter or of no offence at all. If I understood the reasoning of the third' gentleman assessor, he found as a fct that the accused fought with the deceased but he- blxnes - the eccued forqresorting to, a, weapon. He" concluded, however, _ by saying that the accused never intended to do the act but it was by bad luck. I believe that the third gentleman assessor found the accused guilty of manslaughter. '.":It has been conceded by the prosecution that the accused was drinking and was in fact drunk that night. This is evident from the eVidence of Silvester who described the conduct of the accused that eight as not normal. There is also evidence that even at the time he was arrested, the accused appeared drunk. What Is in dispute Is whether the accused was abused and assaulted at the pombe shop, and was further abused by the deceased on the way to police station. The evidence of Grace (P.W.l), Silvester (P.W.2), and Dickson (P.w.3) would tend to uggest' thatthe accused was all the time the aggressor, and that neither the deceased nor any of her relatives abused or assaulted him. Having seen the withesses. and considered the evidence as a whole, am 'of the firm view that theEe three witnesses were not telling the truth on this 'point This is clear from the evidence of Grace P.W.l) who refktant1y'admittea that the deceased was annoyed and struck the accused once an tried. to strike him a second time. She furth€r admits that people intervened in' theutrl.' If all that the acused did's to fell her totheground, I cannot see what would have been tI reason for people to:interverie. I am satisfied and find as a f'aôt that the, accused was assaulted by the deceased, and that he and the. 'deceased. were engaged in a fight. It is also probable that Silvester and Grace. joined in this fight which was stopped' 'pdple there, The accused,, in my opinion, rust have been intoxicated. With regard to the incident on the way to polIce' station, again Iatn of the considered opinion that Silvester (P..,W.2) and Dickson (P.w.3) were not tll.ing the whole trUth on this matter. I caflnosee how., an angered woman who had just ben assaulted and had decided to report the matter to police station can walk quietly in the company...Qfwo sympathisers. ..From the admission of Dickson that they were talking, I incine to the. view that the 'threewere A still talking about the accused as they were walking to police station, and that the talking must have been inangr vôies. 'I'believe that these people continued to shout until they were within th police compound. This is clear from the evidence of Seex'— Major Paulo (P.W.5), who heard the shoits wIile' he was his house What t.accused did thereafter is cbnsistent with the behariou of a .manJwho had run amok. He chased the" three people more or less at rdom and even threatened to assault his fellow police officers. During all this incident the accusd never said a word. When he was caught by his wife, he docilely let her la him to his house after a vicious attack on the deceas€d with a lethal weapon. Indeed, he never bothered to take the pañga himself after killing the deceased. 7 - -2- - 0 ' On these facts I will now proceed to consider the questionwh'ethe .iie killing ws with malice aforethought so as to constitute the offence of murders.' It is,, I 't±ink, settled law that malice aforethought is deemed to be established by evidence proving that the person charged did the act or omission with intention to caue the death of or to.d-c gri2vouS.harrn to any person, or that he did an act or omitted- to do an act' with Iciowledçe that the act or onission would caused,éath-of or grievous harm to some person.. .'200 of the Pea1 Code). So, if a person attcs another in such ecircumstances that an ordinry reasonable man must' ')rthw that at least grievous .bodi1y'h'rrn will result and death results, there is malice aforethought • sufficient to' support the charge of murder (R0 V. Whybrow, (1951) 35 - Cr. App0 Rep..141),' Malice aforethought,, however, may be negatived by evidence that the accused was provked.' This is the defence s€ up by the accused in this case, in •addiion to intoxication. In order to constitute! the' statutory defence of provocation, it must be shown that the'provoctive act -t a wrongful act or an insult of such gravity.as'would deprive a reasonable man of his cower of zalf7contro1, and 'that the retaliatory act by the accused which resultediri the killin.g was done in the heat of pssion, and the nans of reta1iaIon adopted must' be proportionate to the degree of the provocation cOminitted. . (Repub±ic'v. Johali Ismail, (974) L.R.T. But-it is wel.l estab-lihed by the authorities that where an aacused is. shown to have bQeti under influence of intoxication shotly before the d1ling, malice aforetho.ugh.t -i§ less readily infera, and that the burden of proving that an accused person was c6p'ab1e.o.formin the intent necessary to cprstitute' murder. is álways on the prosecution0 . Thi- s': i also true whrd thC accused • puts up ,a plea that by reason,ofifltoxiction he was ihcapable' of forining the specific intentign recluired to constitute the offence charged. In the case of Kongoro aI'ias Athumani s/o Mrisho V. R. (1956) 23E.A.C.A. 532 ; the accused was convicted o'f murder. The accused's defence' F{ad been that due to his intoxication'he was incapable of forming the specif'id;intent to kill or cause grievous harm which is tg op malict. aforethought. There was .cvidence 'that he had had y of heavy drinking..nd4t he tere - after stabbed the deceased several -times with a knife0 The Cqur of 'Appeal for .'as€ Africa had ,thjs to say, , , '• ¶The attack on the deceased was a very violent one with a -'±etha1 weapon. The use of such a weapon may indicate a • - málidious intcht but it is'rxot conclusiv'; of such an intpnt l ifok a person •may'be.-so'drunk as to be utterly una)?le to form any ifltention, at all and yet be guilty of Very great volence. • rIT.&cin all the circumstances into consideration we arable, to say that, had the learned Judge correct directed himself that the ..PnUA rested throughout upon che pposecutibn t prve. beyond reasonable doubt that • the appellant had formdth&equisite intep.t when he 'stabbed the deceased, he would have reached me .conclusi'on.' A in the case of.'R..1 v. Richard Hiyari (1971) H.C.D.'n. '45,'the accused who killed his ister by hitting her on the head wi'th'a ; 'tle after having 'drunk native liquor' for about •fe hours, was found guilty of manslaughter. In that case, Oriyiuko, J.observed: "In cçnsidering whether the accused intended to kill or cause grievous harm to his 'own sister one may be tempted to look for a motive. Tha accused was most friendly to his sister.' ' There was no previous quarrel between them. - I fiid that by reason of his hea'i drinking (the a 'cused) "' acted while still under, influence'of this intoxication and'•did not form the intention to. kill or..caue • grievous bodily ; harm to the deceased'" In the case before me, it is true-that the attack was a most vicious one on a defenceless old woman, and that the panga was a lethal weapon.. . Thidtould tend to suggest that the accused acted with malice..orethought. But, as pointed out, tha,is not oonclusive of the existence of malice aforethought. - The incident in this 'case was preceded by three episodes: the abuses exchangE.d in the potnbe shop and • the resultant the angry words of the deceased on'the way to the police, station, and the angry :W 0 by' the 'deceased and her party as they approached tha police compound. The police compound, as I have said ) is less than haf a,mile 'away;. Acrording to the accused it is a ten—minutes walk from his house to the pombë shop. - From the evidence, therefore, these epi,sode.s made a'si'rigle 'chain, and I cannot say that the period between the time accused entered his house and the time he attackcd the deceased was sufficient for him to sober up o cool his temper. It has bL6n UrgethbYthe Republic thtthertsh ld take the reasonable man in this case to be a rcasQnable police officcr 0 That may be so, but I am not aware of any rule that police officers are less isceptib1e to influenc alcohol than civiLians. In any case, as was observed by`Cr'ossj J. in the case of.R. V. Samson (1967) H.C.D. 71, one must consider that because of the liquor the accused consumed, he was more easil provoked, and under such circumstances, one must not apply the 1 test of cF ordinary reasdnable man. One must consider the effect of Uquor in coming to a conclusion as to i!1etheor not the .accuse'd prson was able to form the necessaryintent. There was no previous qUael between accused and the deceased in this case' or 'izi.their relatives. on the evidence rid- the authorities, therefove s I am of the view that by reason of intoxication, coupled with the assault and abuses on him, the accused was not capable of for intent to constitute the offence of murder when he killed the deceased. But as the killing was clearly uhlawfuli I agree with the gentlemen assessors and find him not guilty of murder, but I find him guilty of the lesser offence of manslauhei, cls 195 of the Penal Code0 B., CHIPETA AG. JUDGE Record: State Attorney): Accused is a first offender. Mitigation Mr. Chambakare: Accused is a first offender, My Lcd He has a wife and three children. His father died three years ago. He is taking care of his mother 0 He has worked in the police force for 15 years. Because of this tMfortunate incident he has lost his rights in the rce. He is aged 36 years. I pray that the Court have leniency on him so that he can come back and help building the nation. He has been in remand for the past 10 months. Accused: I.h&nbthig hiôe to ad. -• Sentence: Shabani Bobi, while I appreciate that you are a first offender nd you have hitherto have had a clean record, I do feel that your conduct) which no doubt was infuenced by intoxication, does not really call £ or mercy. Those who indulge in intoxication and fail to control themselves do so at their peril. I think this is a case which calls for a reasonably severe sentence. I accordingly sentence you to nine years imprisonment 0 B. 0 CHIP'ETA 1/6/76 AG. JUDGE