kessy john vs the republic 1986 tzca 31 23 july 1986

IE THE COURT OF APPEAL OP TANZi*NIA AT iUtUSHA CORAM: MUSTAFA. J -A,.; MiiKAME, J.A . And OMAR, J . A . CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100 OF 1985 K3SSY JOHN’. .................... APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC. ...................RESPONDENT (Appeal from the c o n v i c t i o n o f the High Court o f Tanzania at Arusha) (Mwakibete, J . ) dated the 30th day o f November, 1984 in Crim inal S e s s io n s Case No. 15 o f 1984 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT MUSTAFA, J . A . : The a p p e l la n t was c o n v i c t e d o f manslaughter in the High Court a f t e r a t r i a l on a charge o f murder and was sentenced to 12 y e ar s imprisonment. He i s a p p e a li n g a g a i n s t sentence o n l y . The a p p e l la n t was c o n v i c t e d s o l e l y on the evid ence "based on the (lying d e c l a r a t i o n o f the d e c e a s e d . The decease d had a l l e g e d in the d e c l a r a t i o n th at during a d r i n k i n g s e s s i o n in the a p p e l l a n t ' s house, the a p p e l la n t had robbed o r t r i e d to r o b the deceased o f Shs. 3 0 / - and i n the ©ourse r f had a t ta ck e d and i n j u r e d the deceased. The deceased died s e v e r a l days l a t e r from the i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d at the hand o f the a p p e l l a n t , The cause o f d e ath, a c c o r d i n g to the p o s t mortem r e p o r t , was d i s l o c a t i o n o f the f i r s t t h o r a c i c v e t e r b r a and tota?. t r a n s e c t i o n o f the s p i n a l cord at that l e v e l . The a p p e l l a n t was found by the t r i a l judge to have been drunk at the m a te ria l time and on t h a t c;rouucl,. .-v. .........../ 2 . - 2 - ground the judge Lad c o n v i c t e d i'he a p p e l l a n t o f manslaghter i n s t e a d o f murder. The a p p e l l a n t had been in remand s in «a 1980, and was c o n v i c t e d and sentenced in November, 1984. That would mean "hat the a p p e l la n t had a l r e a d y been in c u s t o d y f o r 5 years b e f o r e he was sentenced t o serve a term o f 12 yea^.3 imprisonment. I t seems that the t r i a l judge had c o n s i d e r e d i n t o x i c a t i o n on the p a r t o f the a p p e l l a n t an a g g r a v a ti n g cir cu mst an ce in imposing the s e n te n c e . We do not think that i s c o r r e c t . We would have thought that i n t o x i c a t i o n in a c r i m i n a l o f f e r e e i s more concerned with the form atio n o f a s p e c i f i c mental element in the commission o f an o f f e n c e . We a p p r e c i a t e that we do not l i g h t l y i n t e r f e r e with a sentence imposed by a t r i a l c o u r t . However on a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l the f a c t o r s we are o f the v ie w that the sente nce imposed i s t o o severe. We reduce the sentence imposed to 5 y ear s imprisonment. The appeal s u c c e e d s . DATED at ARUSHA t h i s 23rd day o f J u l y , 1986= A. MJSTAFA JUSTICE OF APPEAL L . M. MAKiiME JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. M. A. OMa R JUSTICE OF APPEAL . ../3 - 3 - I c e r t i f y th at t h i s i s a tr ue copy o f the o r i g i n a l . (J . H. M3 0 FFE) DEPUIY RE G-I STEi.fi.