marambe so nyamutabila vs republic 1986 tzca 83 1 december 1986

in the court of appeal of Ta n z a n i a AT MWANZA (CORa M: N yalalj. G.J., Makame. J . a . and K i s a n q a . J.A. ) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 42 OF 1986 B E T W E E N MARAMBE s/o NYAMUTa B I L A ......................„ . . . . APPELLANT A N 0 THE REPUBLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESPONDENT ( A p p e a l from t he c o n v i c t i o n o f the High C o u r t o f T a n z an i a a t Mwanza) ( Munyera, J . ) d a t e d the 29th d a y o f May, 1986 in Criminal Sessions Ca se No . 341 o f 1985 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Ma k AME, J . A . : The High C o u r t s i t t i n g a t Musoma, M u ny er a, J . , found t he a p p e l l a n t MARAi-.BE NYAMUTABILA g u i l t y o f mu r der on two c o u n t s and a c c o r d i n g l y condemned him to s u f f e r d e a t h . He was found to ha ve ■ n u r de r e d two p e r s o n s , a woman c a l l e d BriDI BUL^YI and a man c a l l e d oHIWa k IDANHO. Mr. Rutakolezibwa, learned counsel, has a d v o c a t e d f o r him b e f o r e us, w he r ea s Mr. Ndolezi, learned Senior State Attorney, appeared for the r e s p o n d e n t R e p u b l i c . At his trial the a p p e l l a n t d e n i e d t h a t he and the .\ d e c e a s e d woman wer e f r i e n d s a t a l l . However, the t r i a l c o u r t found, and t h a t i s our view a l s o , t h a t the a p p e l l a n t and t he d e c e a s e d woman were l o v e r s . Iir. R v - t ^ k o l e s i b - r a teas concedsc: „c ;nuch. .. .. The second d e c e a s e d arrived at Butuguri V i l l a g e in Musoma D i s t r i c t * on the f a t e f u l day. A ccoriing to P . W . l SUZANA SUMBUKA, t h e d e c e a s e d B a y i's daughter, the male d e c e a s e d was the female d e c e a s e d ’ s grandson. We ha ve o u r own d o u b t s ab^u . “he a l l e g e d relationship, but that i s besides the p o i n t . Be i t as i t may, Ki danho f o und h i s way t o B a y i ' s ho use and some time l a t e r t h a t d a y the two we nt o u t f o r a drink* The f o l l o w i n g d a y P . W . i found their de ad b o d i e s in a pool o f blood in B ayi's house. They had o b v i o u s l y b ee n k i l l e d most v i o l e n t l y and P . W . i f ound h e r younger b ro th e r, P.W.2 BULAYI MUkARA, still 0OW©a3i.ny i n e i d e the house. He t o l d her that the a p p e l l a n t had come t h e previous n i g h t and k i l l e d t h e i r mother and t he mal e visitor. evidence without taking the o a t h . He was s a i d t o be f o u r t e e n y e a r s d u r i n g the t r i a l and as t he m u r d e r s had b e e n committed some f o u r y e a r s earlier P .W. 2 must have bee n only ten a t the m a t e ria l t i me. He g a v e a d e t a i l e d account o f how t h e a p p e l l a n t , a man who used t o c o ne and s l e e p i n t h e i r house, came d u r i n g the m a t e r i a l night, c u t the r o p e securing the d o o r , entered, and, w ithout saying anything, assaulted P . W . 2 ' s mo th er and t h e mal e visitor who w e r e dr u n k and sleeping on one b e d . If the b o y ' s story i s rightly accepted and b e l i e v e d , the a l l e g e d mu rder s wcn il d c e r t a i n l y ha ve bee n p r o v e d . Mr. Rutakolezibwa has s ub m i t t e d that v i s i b i l i t y in t h e room must have been p o or and t h a t the s i n g l e eye­ witness did n o t h a v e good o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e e what was going on and who the a s s a i l , a n t r e a l l y w a s . He a l s o pointed out that t he b o y had made a s t a t e m e n t t o the Police i n which he said he saw t he h a p p e n i n g s w i t h the aid of a fire ligh t w he r ea s i n c o u r t h e s a i d it was § koroboi larap w hi c h i l l u m i n a t e d the room. As remarked e a r l i e r on, the a p p e ll a n t denied being friends with the d e c e a s e d woman. The a p p e l l a n t a l s o p u t up an a l i b i - that during the m a t e r i a l n i g h t h e was a t home in bed w i t h h i s senior w ife. He c a l l e d his son D.VJ.2 W I L L I a M MARAMBE to support h i s a l i b i , but D . W . 2 ’ s testimony d id n o t s u cce ed in doing this. T h e r e was some e v i d e n c e b y P.W.3 Ma SHa l a JUMAt S u z a n a ' s husband, t h a t when he p a ss e d by h i s m o t h e r - i n - l a w ' s house a t about 8 'that e v e n i n g , he f ° und t he a p p e l l a n t and Bayi q ju a r r o ll i n ^ s The a p p e l l a n t was o b j e c t i n g to the presen ce o f t he v i s i t o r whom h e s u s p e c t e d to be B a y i ' s paramour. The a p p e l l a n t demanded from B a y i , and was g i v e n by h e r , his bottle o f pombe b e f o r e g o i n g away. Both a s s e s s o r s who s a t a t the t r i a l expressed the opit-ion th a t the b oy P.W„2 told the t r u t h t h a t he saw t he k illin gs and the l e a r n e d trial judge a ls o relied on t h a t evidence, ch iefly, to find the a p p e l a n t g u i l t y . We a p p r e c i a t e that P.W .3 ’ s evidence goes to establish t h a t the a p p e l l a n t was a t B a y i ' s p l a c e that e v e n i n g and that t h e r e was some q u a r r e l b et w e e n them. The a p p e l l a n t was a n g r y and he took away h i s liquour. It ca n be a rg ue d w i t h convincing force that that could b e t a k en to in d ic a t e t h a t t he a p p e l l a n t f e l t h e was t h r o u g h w i t h B ay i and would n o t w i s h t o go back to her. Or it could e q u a l l y be t ak en t o s u g g e s t that because o f the quarrel t he a p p e l l a n t would ha v e had a m o t i v e t o go b ac k t° the ho u se and k i l l the deceased- So i t co u ld be argued - ^ e i t h e r way r e a l l y , and c a n - o t be c o n c l u s i v e one way o r the o th e r . P.W .2's evidence i s the pivotal testimony r e a l l y . We ha v e experienced some d i f f i c u l t y over i t . The l e a r n e d trial judge dismissed the a l l e g e d d i s c r e p a n c y b et w ee n w h a t P . W. 2 told the c o u r t r e g a r d i n g the s o u r c e o f l i g h t that enabled him t o s e e t he a s s a u l t , and what he was a l l e g e d t o have said in his police s t a t e m e n t a b o u t the m a t t e r — whether i t was a k o r o b o i or a f i r e . The l e a r n e d trial judge resolved the c o n f l i c t by asserting not a u l y -that the co n trad ictio n did not matter but a l s o that "th e re i s no guarantee that the policeman d i d not misquote the b o y ” . We f i n d this c a v a l i e r a p p r oa c h rather disconcerting: If t h e r e was i n d e e d such a c o n f l i c t the way t o r e s o l v e it s h o u l d ha ve been more j u d i c i a l . If t he a p p r o a c h i s merely to s ay t h e r e was no ' g u a r a n t e e ' t h a t the P o l i c e did n o t m i s q u o t e t h e b o y, what g u a r a n t e e i s there that the P o l i c e m i s q u ot e d t h e boy? • • •• We a r e h a p p i l y saved the t as k of ii-vyintg t o ' J T a o o l v e t one b e c a u s e ( on t h e r e c o r d , the a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t was n o t p r o d uc e d and the w i t n e s s never admitted t h a t he t o l d t he P o l i c e a b o u t a fire. He was m e r e l y asked the q u e s t i o n by l e a r n e d counsel, Mr. Sandhu, in cro ss- exam ination, and he d e n i e d . There i s another r e fe r e n c e of a fire by Mr. Sandhu i n h i s fin al address to t he tria l court b u t no c o n c e s s io n about i t by I l r . Malamsha, learned State Attorney. VJe a r e therefore at a loss as t o w he re from t h e l e a r n e d trial judge got this bit about a f i r e . No t i n the e v i d e n c e on r e c o r d ! t ’i s r s f o r e , Going by the r e c o r d , wa/find in f a v o u r o f the R e pu blic t h a t P.W.2 d id n o t c o n t r a d i c t h i m s e l f on t h e issue of t he source o f l i g h t - it was merely a k o r o b o i . Having said t h a t , ho w e v e r , o u r pr ob le m i s t h a t the boy s a i d "When he s t a r t e d slaughtering the two d e c e a s e d the k o r o b o i went o u t ” . If that was so, and we must assume i t was, it is d ifficu lt to v i s u a l i z e how the b o y c o u l d ha ve seen the p r o g r e s s of the a s s a u l t a s detailed by him. The d e t a i l s c o n s i s t e d of the c u t t i n g o f the v i s i t o r with a knife, t he s t r i k i n g o f B a y i w i t h a c l u b on the he a d, cutting h e r ne ck, the a p p e l l a n t go ing out and coming back again and stabbing t h e g u e s t some more. It is d ifficu lt to conc eiv e this if the l i g h t w e n t o f f a t the beginning of the a s s a u l t as t h e boy s a i d . Then t h e r e was a l s o the f a c t the t "During a l l these happenings I was h i d i n g m y s e l f u nd e r the bed", w he r e a s the two v i c t i m s w a r e on t he bed a b o v e him. The i n t r u s i o n and s a v a g e attack a t n i g h t must ha v e been a t r a u m a t i c experience for the boy and we c a n n o t c o n f i d e n t l y say t h a t from w he r e h e was, u n d e r t he b ed , the w i t n e s s had an i d e a l opportunity t o s e e w h a t he s a i d he saw. ‘ He was so a f r a i d that even when h i s sister arrived at t he ho use the follow ing morni ng t h e p o o r boy was s t i l l " i n my h i d i n g " . We f i n d t h a t Mr. R u t a k o l e z i b w a ' s c o m p l a i n t s have m erit. We c ann ot feel certain that P .-».2 's iden tification of the a p p e l l a n t as the a s s a i l a n t was w a t e r t i g h t . Our d o u b t i s f u r t h e r deepe ne d by t he f a c t th at the i n j u r i e s on the d e c e a s e d persons, as reported by bhe . a: d o c t o r who p e r f o r m e d the a u t o p s i e s , do n o t c o r r e s p o n d with the ones o ne would ha ve e x p e c t e d t o be f ound i f the b o y had rea lly told t he truth. Our v i e w i s that the a p p e l l a n t ' s g u i l t was n o t established beyond reasonable d o u b t and so we allow t he -. ai ppe a.1. We a c c o r d i n g l y quash the c o n v i c t i o n and set aside the sentence o f death. If the a p p e l l a n t i s no t o t h e r w i s e l a w f u l l y held he should forthw ith be r e l e a s e d . We w i s h t o make two remarks b e f o r e we f i n i s h : First, the l e a r n e d t r i a l judge s h o ul d ha ve c o n s i d e r e d t he even ap p ellan t's a l i b i , / i f o n ly to r e j e c t i t . Learned Defence Counsel quite ju stly c o m pl a i n ed that t he l e a r n e d tria l judge did n o t touch on t h e a l i b i at a l l , n o t even i n his summing up to the a s s e s s o r s . S ec on d ly , we a r e a n x i o u s that trial courts should c o n fin e themselves to t he e v i d e n c e on r e c o r d when recapitulating i t . In the present c a s e ,P .W .3 ' s evidence was that the a p p e l l a n t a s k - d f o r a~ci. was g i v e n . his bottle o f pombe„ The l e a r n e d trial ^udge as ssf cs te d that t h e a p p e l l a n t as ked for h i r bottle o f moshj. We t h i n k the two w o rd s do n o t mean the same t h i n g * DATED a t MWANZA t h i s 1 s t d a y o f December, 1986. Fo L. NYAL^LI CHIEF JUSTICE L » Mo MARAME JUSTICE OF APPEAL P , Ho KlSANGA JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify v t e ; th is is a t r ue copy o f the o r i g i n a l . (./■ ( J 5 -Hv -’MSOFFE ) DEPUTY REGISTRAR