19790518 TZHC Tanga2

tt jo cuoiutthuoo o q. o 14 o?Oq. TUWV O t10jtG 9 E1 ixo c)M Gum Ott '8L6T 0 Att) TPrT Ot T.t- 'AJP -t-ipq.pw Olqq. tb OOJO Ot. OO qUt13O o.stXOO qInO o Or rfltj tIT TT1q. OI@ qno ppT otq. jo ooio nouojop oqq. 6 pcxt2LT tjOQt UQ pe.EOI1t aoqultt O tutixr , o iou ut.x uet. puv poqqi'q.o oq uooxocI o. o utriodcft noo qoT.IqEjT etq. trç TJq oi4 qt qttO pç o ecTO uOTnOOsO.Xd O14tfl1 09 , pJtOJ tT qT 'OstO iTt4 UT andp UT OXTttOTWA 8L61 'ir tLt sew-tqo1llOo TUcu'V Ut pogoJIt otM utiTodcIt ot. qLI4q 4ndtp otx ST oioti. 'oiowJotn OUIOOJ cç a o OUO trt paUflu— toTu otvtqnouOo TtM qULUO. t 312 poAll u. -pddt - tq. ondsp otr ci: o.rotq. 'oxo '(ç.) ti t.xtiuns ,o pLoq.coubot otq. t tTM ttObUIoc ot. Trc poqq' qc Tonot.1c ct — tt2j ttxtpqj - a 'L6T 'A%3]7I ttI.I Otfl. JO UTUVLO 3t14 u'txnp cotqitd ot. uooMqeq onCI -tp OU 01 Ojoljq, SUI00, t pu 'ouy ot itdtoutxa poix.xtoT otq. optL 'uo1otu1qnc Tt.10 ;oixq ot. put 90=00 olt.q. o utiiodct otq. q po1uiqno TLOddt' Jo UflpULXOiYIOW OI.q 6 0JflOO Tt14 ctr 0 9,uotuSpnp otq 'mo qo1.1c1 ot[l- lxi (ttJ. Qt. t pOoflppt OottOp1AOett. pOUtUlLXO ATflJO1.O OAttj I C ••'. .. •:f.; .. •iVOTII01f Ttdiout.xa puJueT 'oTrno'.I 1cq pottocpidoj: um 'to&oot 'otqndj ot itocLij ttI , jo uttto 4. -c pOUQcOICIO.I oq 10 .IOd('b3 OU pOOiO Ot( 30ddI JO Wnputi.IO!UoUt oTtt tbl It'100 citt- 1crJ ctjq- OOUOt pUt? ootXotboc put? UOToTAUOO ouq q pOAoit: 013M tfl03 cTt. Jcq tXOT!lt?UI.1TJUo3 o, .o qn,, - q.uowuocJdw °R oq. peoUcxUec cuM put? 'OpOD Tt?Ue Ot. JO G UOpOOc O. 1c.it.XtlOo ULXPt OflOAOIJ2 1U1OflLO ,O ')OIYOJJcY oT.fl poq,O1.A.UOO pu poLxtt(o OLM tpunq1y pTtzto 'Te -uxt, u 'ULTTOddt? atq. O.IOt JO .rn Ot bJ1" çQptt1IO 1tOddt? {uUIWIJo ct - r o 'InIvrivxI - J'3 LC' c DD çL i I r T Y .0 cfy .T, uCYq.000 . LtOO - m.xlpq cflOA1trtrtt0 pflI3 4." (.1oqn000.ra Tthh:'tbO) T T " 'rçj ),T 1 orianaa HJ, TrTj. r ctU11'A +iC c . . '• - jj L-' r CfL+ (Pqcfl0v Tttt1O) •LYcaav 1, 'a (4ØInSvEvTfwvo ~ 0!(t.Otfl fjJl Ô Lô ° ot?tlx.c D ,TOUTT 1 O) 1 L JT u...-. •,. , - . fr1 ;j - . r r J • - ç•.-4- ucr .3• --- • - .4 ..--... .42fl•(.- -;;-' •--.-'-:., -, • .• '-.• 2- T' '--,-. :- - - •-- -. r- mIvwd -ao lunoa HIH HJ NI 4I'f 'T T 1 The first point for consideration and decision in this case, is whether the appellant's alibi is probable. :The..ppellant called one of his companions to testify in his defence. This witness 0) Va 3), ` however, testified to the effect that he aio, not re.mëmber ever travelling with the appellant in May 1978. On this eidenoo 1 am of the view that the appellant's alibi•isimprooahle. The next point for consideration and doc1joti in base is whether the appellant is the persOn who stabbed P.W.2. The prosecution relied on the evidence given by P.\i.2and: PVJ3 . ,who testified to the effect th:t the appellant stabbed P.'.2 after P.V1.2 had bought and drunk some local liquor sold to him by the said in her raom. The evidence jS also to the effect that the stabbing took place in the verandah of the house where "Omba" and the appellant had a •roo.- it the said flOm ba tt, who must have been aware of whahapenod, was not cafled to give evidence at the trial in the District Oourt. Purthemore., P.W.3's evidence is not consistdi2t, in some, ,maeridr respects, with ,thd evidence of . .ui.2hotestifiod to the effect thtt he cried out for help after boin stibbed by the appellant. P 3 however who, according to his evidence, happened to be around, tetified to the effect that he did not hear anyone crying for help. A1thoth, according to him, the events took only a few minutes, P 3 does i3ot appear to have seen the napellant actually stdbbing P.W, except 1 tht he olaims to have seen the appellant holding a knife and threçi -tenihg ItOm 1tt P12 Since P. 3 is the lindlord of the appellant and the said and happened to be noarby.whpn the incideflt occurred, he must havSeen more than what he told in court. In other words, there jS something material which P.i3 did not disclose in court This is, ecnsiotent with the testimony of Pl 5, the police officer who nvestito +i-,i Who testified t the effect that i1n he yiitod the scene of crime and interogated the appellant's concubine and P.W.3, he waS,o the irnpressioh that the truth was being hidden. P.5 testili..cd in ccjkirt that:- Thoy did not give ne any cloir evidence rogardia the incident. They scorned to be hiding the trut"i.', It is arparent in this cae that the whole truth his not Uccn told even in court by thb"prbieOutio witnesses,, especially P.7.2 and P.4.3 who are the material witnesses on the prosecution sjd, The question arises what effect does the failure br a witness to speak the whole truth in court have on the testimony or the witness himself? In my 'considered opinion, an apparent failure by a, witness to speak the whole truth in court renders such a Witness, unreliable. In the present caso, therefore, P.J2 and p.W.3 are unreliable wtnessos, hind since they are the :mdtexial - 3-. witnosoes on the prosecution case, it must follow that it is unsafe to uphold the conviction. he appeal, therefore, succeeds by quashing the conviction, setting aside the sentence and directing thut the appellant be released from jail forthwith unless detained therein for some other lawful cause, ( F. L. NYJLJLI ) CHIEF JIJ\STICE Delivered in Court at Tanga this 18th day of May, 1979, in ie presence of Mr. Sokule, learncd Principal State Atto:'ney for the Republic and in the absonce of the appellant duly notified. /f(\ • . ( P. L. NYALALI ) CHIEF JUSTICE