19771130 TZHC Mwanza

IlI THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA ... AT 1iEl AH Z.A AFI'Ei:,L.A'.l'E JUHISmCTION HIGH COUilT CRII.ffN_i\L A::?P.f:;AI, no. 229 OF 1977 01UG1H.AL cmI,illHiL·'Cii.8I~ ~rn~ 115, 0F·i977. OJi' TI1E ', .. :OIS'.CRICT COURT. 01!, ..GRETA . :•· ·. ·,' ·:01,;~rRICT.:A~ ·..... :: , GKLTA · . ' ·.l . WILLE!BU) . :' . . ,: lil.Z.Ai.'ULA . , • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -~ APPRLL.AWT (Original Accused) .-. .- 'II! ••• versus • • • • • & . . . . . . • • • • • • /·i-·i·:;. · ~- RES-ItimmT . (Original Prosecutor) CH.AR.GE: Assaulting causing acturu.y bodily harm c/s 241 of the Penal Code Cap~ ,16~ JTJDGEMTINT LUG.AICrNGIRA, J • The appellant fought with a barmaid in a b1:.r at Geita~ Being aggrie-ved, he reported the incident at the Police Sto.tion the same night, It seems that the complainant woman was picked up or called to the Police StaUon two dcys later and questimed. She naturally represented that the appellant bed t.=u.isaul ted her u.Dlawfo.lly and the police turned an the appellant and charged him With assault occasioning actual bodily harm~ His oV\'J:l report was swept urrler the carpet. He was cauvicted. and sentenced to nine months' ir:J.prisanment with an order for compensation. He th~:in appealed against conviction and 0entcnc e; In convicting the appellant the trial magistrate relied on the evidence of D/Cpl Arigeline (RI 2) an<l JJeonatus I'h:ayaya (Pd 3) who found the appellant on top of the complainent·~· None of these witnesses, hail ever, saw the start of the fight or lmew the reason therefor• I am therefore inclinE::d to i;he defence story that the appellrnt declined the oomplai.~ant 1 s offer to open his bottle of beer and got it opened by another womm end that this ami.oyGd the complci.nant who then uttered obcenities, extolling her genital, poured the appellant's beer ancl then· grabbed the appellmt by the neck and tore his shirt, whereupan the appe,llr:nt tackled her and landed her on the floor. In effect the complo.inant said the s:we thing although she naturally apportioned the first insults to the appellant'~ In those circumstnnces it would have been fair -to speak of a fight rather than an assGult. Had the appellant bean the aggressor it would not have taken .the complainant two dr:ys to compl0in; and 011ly after she had been arrested or mum:noned to the Police Ste.ti on·. It sho:;s that she was not convinced of her innocence. This also explains why D/Cpl lll.l-3elinii IlQYor t_ook r.l1y s·teps r::::;..d.nr.:t tho :-.:.ppelJ.2,nt al though he Vli tnessed part. of the fight~ In ali fa.irness, therefore, both corJbata11ts should have been charged with i:..ffray contrary· to s.· 87 of the Penal Code rather than pick. on the appellant alone and, ironically, after he had lode;ed a complaint~ I am therefore not satisfied thr.t thG ass.:n,1.lt was not justified for it appears to, have been a comm.a.1surate reactirn.1 to t...'1-ie complainant' s attack. Even if th13 cmvictian couB. be sus-bainea, the sentence was manifestl~r on the high side. 'l'h,-➔ re vn~s no recson why the appellant was not given the option of a finG. Ey brother who admitted this appeal similarl·y rem:.,rk.:d tl:t.::·t the sc~n-~·. mce borderec1 on tLe vindictive.1 · It definitely 3.ppeu.rs so. As was G'UbEti.. tted by learmJd counnel for ·the Republic, JYlr. Rwechungura, this \7o.G a proper cnse for cooo.i tional. dischE:rge with a tokrrD compens1-:!tion.; 2 ...,. t On c.cc oti.ht,, of the qeci si.on• 1. irn:YG ren9l1od ''iji,{ove, I all ON the appool ii, its &ntµ-e'-ty,. qup_oh tho convicti'o-n 2nd··\30t ~.side the sentome and order for' corilpeils2,tiori/ 1Jlfr) i:J)pell.::D.,t sl1ould be cii:runodiutely freed unless fl1.rt};~q1Z': :ilnwfully \h'old e . ·-:-:;f~;;~·. )::;i;._:.:t:·)· . ... : . ' ·, :.· . . ._·{. .::.:~ ·~ ~ .,, . ... ~: ; '·t'lNAJ!fZA' . 30TH . N0VEL13:8R 2 1977 ~ JUDQE ·· r :. : i ·' 1 ~ ! ~ ! ,! ~ ,: •: i. ~ ..:·\ ~t:::: ... ) .. i + ,t .'(··/ ' .,! -:~.·.~.' ·.: :•', ~~·-, J.I .• ,' ·.·-· [, .( ... .!. -•. ............." .... . ,., ..,:, .; ... J \. : "\ .... \ ., .f " .. ii