shija kidete vs republic 1982 tzca 3 1 june 1982

I > . I N T H E C O U R T OF a P P E a L OF T A N Z A N I A A T D A R ES S AL AA M (CORAM: M u st af a. J.A. , M w ^ k a s e n d o . J.^. and Makame, J.A. CRXM-NAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 1981 3 H T ■& E E N SHIJA KIDETE. . . . . . . - .» . .. .. ... . A P P E L L a NT A N D TH E REPUBLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESPONDENT (.'.ppeal frorr. the c o n v i c t i o n of the High C o u r t of T a n z a n i a at Nzega) (Mushi, J.) d a t e d the 14th day of October, 1980, in Criminal S e s s i o n s C a s e I.’o <■ 14 of 1 9 8 0 J U D G M E N T OF THE C O i n T M U S T A F a , J.A. : The? appellant was charged v d t h and c o n v i c t e d of murder. There was evidence t h a t the a p p e l l a n t had a s s a u l t e d th e de ce a s e d . At about midnight one n i g h t the a p p e l l a n t took the d e c e a s e d to the h o u s t of the a p p e l l a n t 1s b r ot he r, one Si pi lingi, alleging th a t h e h a d f o u n d the d e c e a s e d c o m m i t t i n g adultery with S i p i l i n g i ’s wife. T h e d e c e a s e d wa s f o u n d b l e e d i n g f r o m the mouth, and seen with somw b r u i s e s on the back. The appellant s lept that n i g h t a t S i p il in gi , and the deceased walked to h i s own home. The m a t t e r of the adultery was t o be d e a l t w i t h the f o l l o w i n g day. O n the f o l l o w i n g m o r n i n g the d e c e a s e d v.».s f o un d lying o n the gr o u n d in h i s h u t i n a c r i t i c a l c o n d it io n, his body and head swollen. He w a s t ; ks n to hosoitc.1 and he died the same day. The d o c t o r w h o p e r f o r m e d the p o c t - n o r t . n e x a m i n a t i o n on the d ec e a s e d give ev id ence. He s tated tha t the c a u s e of de ath was suffocation, and that it •?.->s pos ; . i M . that th"! instrument used to suffocate the dec-.v’s^d w a s z r-i''2C- of c lo th or a rope. _ 2 - The tr:'.al iu.ige in s um m i n g up t'~ tho n<: ’ssors told t h e m th a t th- y c o u l d ignore th-> d o c t o r ' s opinion is to t he c a u s e of death, if t h er e w t s c l e a r •'-vider-ce c o n t r a d i c t i n g such opinion. The *udgo in h i s juihvrrK-nt f o u n d as s f n e t th^it tha d e c e a s e d di ed as •? r« cult of the i n j u r i e s he sustained at the h a n d s of the a pp a l l a n t , m o s t p r o b a b l y f r o m k i c k s or nttackg with a b l u n t object. The j ud ge also r u le d cu t th possibility of an i n t e r m e d i a t e intervention'between the time th ■? d e c e a s e d walked back to hi s h u t and the following morning when h •• w a s found in a c r i t i c a l c o n d i t i o n . W e do n ot t h in k tha t the j udge w a s ju st i f i e d in hi s r e j e c t i o n of the d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n of the c a u s e of death, th nt is, su f f o c a t i o n , n o r do w e think that the j udge w as justified in his findings of f.-ct w h i c h ar;; not b ased on any e v i d e n c e . Vie do not. thir.k that th ; p r o s e c u t i o n h^s e s t a b l i s h e d any l i n k b-.-tween the injuries inflicted on the d e c e a s e d b y the appellant and the s u f f o c a t i o n which c.->.used the d ^ a t h of the d e c ;asec„. In the r e s u l t w e are sa ti sf i.-.u that the c h a r g e of murd r has not b-en established ’ . gainst the aepe] 1 r.t« We, h o v » v « , ara satisfied th*t the at eellant w.,»« of causing actual bodily hsrra - contrary to section 241 of th? Penal Coe.., We allow the ov^-eal, qu~.'h th:- conviction for murder, set side the s e n te nc e of d e a th p:.ss :d on th-? a p pe llant, causing and s u b s ti tu te therefor c o n v e n t i o n f o r / a c t u n l b o d i l y harm. -------- /3 _ 3 - We sentence him to two years' imprisonm'Jit. This wi l l result in h i s immediate r<;leas<3 from prison is h e hi s b e e n in custody from 3rd Juno, 1978„ DATED at D.vl: ES S t h >«i-. this tn d.iy of Jun-^. *932.’ A., KU.:r. >7, JUSTICE -.I'rS'.L L. M. M/Jt/sME JU^TIC1': VF aP«nAT. T certify cha!. thi* is •; true c o p y of the original«