19860514 TZCA Dar es Salaam
{7 & 1·r- . ,'' " :-I.I : .. h ,. , ~~ 1'I'. • IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA !!]>..!!!.~-~~ I i .ii' t~T¥'A• J .A.; MA.KAME. J .A. An~ 0?1AR 1 J ••A. 1:I :1: ·- _ca;mINAL APPEAL llOL~-~ ~F 1985 !i,, M}Al~ASll.,IWA KIN'.PUNZA. • • . . . ••APPELLANT ,cl I VERSUS THE REPUBLIC. • • • • • • • • • •...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19860514 TZCA Dar es Salaam
- Court
- TZCA
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 14 May 1986
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
No structured case brief is available yet for this judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
{7 & 1·r- . ,'' " :-I.I : .. h ,. , ~~ 1'I'. • IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA !!]>..!!!.~-~~ I i .ii' t~T¥'A• J .A.; MA.KAME. J .A. An~ 0?1AR 1 J ••A. 1:I :1: ·- _ca;mINAL APPEAL llOL~-~ ~F 1985 !i,, M}Al~ASll.,IWA KIN'.PUNZA. • • . . . ••APPELLANT ,cl I VERSUS THE REPUBLIC. • • • • • • • • • • •RESPONDENT (Appeal f'rom the conviction of the High Oo~t o! Tanzania. a.t Iringa) (Mtenga., J.) dated the 16th day of November, 1985 in .e. -- Criminal Sessions Case No. 48 of 1981 JUDGMENT OJ.i' THE COURT MUSTAFA. J .A.i The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death ~d he is appealing. ·· The deceased with several other people were in the house ot P.W.} Mpogolo in the afternoon of 1st April, 1980 at Weru Village in the Irinl& Dist:i=i.ct. Among them wa.s P.W.1 . Serwa.ni ·---- . who we.a married to or had ,. lived with the appellant e. long while ~o. The appellant joined the group. There wa.s some al~ercatio:.1 between the appellant and P.W.1 oonoern~ the death of their grandchild, According to ~osecution evidence tbs deceased intervened and took the appellant out of the hoWJe in a peaceful menner. According to the a.ppellant 1 G testi.Dloey the deoee.sod ordered him out of. the hou.se. Both the appellant and the deoeaaed left the house, ap~ent~ , i I I• ,,i walking tow~ds a cattle bome. •. Vecy short~ theree.i'ter _some noS.Se . t I! 111 :waa heard and two witnesses P,W.2 and P.W.3 as.id e.s they came out or I 1: 111 '"I I:I' jil looked out they saw the appellant hitting the deceased on the ai-m and ,1 , I the deceased wes falling down. The deoeeaed died 2 cia¥S le.tar •. 'lb8 II I :1 appellant we.a arrested on the spot. :i , 11 ,I . I ,I ·, 1:1 'I . . I 1 ,,,11 ,I'i~ ~! :i 1·. I : :1 i :1 :1 ,., 1:1 ,,·I :1:, I' i:1 ,, :; ~ i-- P.W.2 in his. evidence at first stated tha.t as he was peeping tbJ:ough the -door to see the appellant a.nd the deceased going awq he saw tbe cleoee.eed lea.vi.Ilg the a.ppella.nt a.nd turned to return to the house. As deoee.sed_tumed__P,W.2 13aid he sa.w the appellant hitt~ the dec_eaeed · on the head with e. heavy bamboo stick. He ren out to intRVGDO azid. as be ~eme out he saw the appellant hitting the deceased a second t:IJne on the e.l:111• However in cross examination he admitted that ne onlY came out when ~ · he "t?,ea.rd appells.nt I s shout 11 Nimekugonga.11 and eo.w t be deoee.aed £alling down. As he. rushed out he sa.w the a.ppella.,t delivering the aeoond biow to tbe deceased on the a.rm. We are sa.tisfied that P.W.2 d:S.d not e.otual.'11 see the first blow on the head of th1 deceased, but o~ the second blow after 'ne had hes.rd a. noise. P.W.1 also testified that P,'W.2 l'l)Sbad .i out after hearing noises. ,'.I[; l•'I I :ii:: ,i,1 P.W.3 also at first testified that she saw the deoee.aed bitting !111 ·1:1, the dece~ed on the head after the ·appellant a.nd the deo~aaed had gone ;1 · ; .) iii1;: out. Later she qua.lilied this and sta.ted she did not see t'be blt)w on tbe head, but_when f!b.e.. ~ ccJTJP, out 9 she sa.w the appellant bitt~ the deoee.sed with a stick on.the a.rm. The Doctor P.W.7 testified a.nd ea.id tbs deceased bad died 1'ro.m, beaA ·. 1) I, 11 · · 1 , 11; :injury and haemorrhage. He said that the deoeeaed e heed w~ 1'ra.cturad, a ,} I , I ! I, depressed ~ra.oture on the ba.ok, the oooipjtal region,. '1'he upper pa;i:t of I I,' (" tb.e le!t a.rm, the humerus, wa.s a.lso broken. The appellant stated in evidence that aiter he was ordered out of the ho\18e by the deoee.sed he went towards the ca.t~le boma, 'lhen he heard somebody calling him· to stop. He did so and a.s he turned l)aok he sa.v tbe deoea.sed and he alleged tha,t the deceased then uttered the !oUowing words to him: • . t:1lli' j' I· I : ' . I I I 1, t . I I: i: .. - } ~ ·' !(:. ~- ... ,1' I, ~, l Mganga Siliwa wewe ni mpumba.vu eena.. 11 Kwa nini umeintukana ,cf ' h mama ambe.po mwenye. nyumba. ~po"• rr, f!.·1 · , ••1 ~r- Ha asked the deoea.aed why he was inaul ting him. lle saJ.d t\w deoeaae4. ·" I•· 1,1 1· I ,1 it 1,Jtl the!\ picked up a. thick bamboo st:i.ok to hit tbe e.ppellaQt, 'nlq fl. :- etrugg).ed for the stick and the appellant ~aged to en~toh it. Re bit the deceased once on the fonhead ancl arm and the deceased. fell d.o~.- Ke ea.id he had hit the dece~ed beoause the,deoeeaed. had wulted • him, and because the deceased had wan~d- to hit h1,m fint. ,,.."I .. He we.a emphatic ' , .1 :11: ', ,I r that he bad struck onlY onoo, and espla.ined the in~w:1 to tbfl arm by' j., mi,, ':1I srqillg that the stick mw,t ba,ve elid down to tho e.rm e!tel' the ,~Qke ,;i.' _(J J:: ! '." on the decea.eed 1e head, I ' [ 1. 1 I ( b .judge and the aases~o_H believed tbe proaoo\\tion witnesaea 11 1 'I!11' . and t'ouncl that the a.ppellant h8d told a 11:paolc of liea"• However, as we Ii,: ba.ve remulced earl:Lor, P,W,2 and P,W,) oleuly had exeeserated when tMY !i I I ;L I at t'il:st c).aiJ1¥1d that t~Y' ao~ua.l.)¥ saw the appellant hit.t1z,g the f j I . I'' I J1 !·j.• <leoeeaed Qn the bead, or tha.t they, aaw him p:Loking up the atiQk. W. ·,, ii' i' . 'i l \, ,I I ,) are sa.tis.t'ied 1;hat both P,W.2 and p,w., came out when thq 'Mari tpe . I I ' .• J sho\lt by the appellant end a.otuall1 ea.w tbe appellant del,ivedng tbe ! '!' :I I I, II, ' .. I second blow, We are also satisfied that the _deceased wa.s et::u.ok while lj t ;\' ·£::) bis bi!,Ok was towards the a.ppellMt. ·~e medioa.l evfdenoe olearlY establi- II 'II shed that the !ra.ctur• was on·tne 'back 0£ the d~oeeaed'e naad. We. e.re I also eatistied thi,t the a.ppellant bad str~k ~he deceaaed twioeJ ' ,i !1 11 I iI I Ii ot~rwiee then can be no explanation o! tb.e bl:oken n\l111Srll5• 'l'tw I" i. ·, a.ppellimt clearly li.i?d when he said he bad struck. the doceeaeli only onc_e "i o.r that thoY were !a.ce to f'e.ce and struggling when he delive~ed tbe 'blow 1111· · I' I I 1 on the deceasel1 1 e head. 'l'he evidence o! the prosecution witnesses ia I i/ '1 ii,I 'i t .) .~a.eioally and eubeta..ntially true. II :, I - It 1s true there is n~ dil:eot evidence as to how the attM)k started• :,, ,, 1: '1,,, ., 1 However we a.re satisfied tbat the deoeeJSed and the e.ppel.lent together left the house or P,w,,, end :iJDrnediately tbe~er£ter there we.a the shout .,l • .•••••• /4 ... -·, I •111"'' I ii ,._ r i!llji , II Iii'' ~~ ! 11 I •I . I ' ::1 ' I ' , t ~;,;;;~ ' ' ·:. ·,. ' ', - '. \. ·. ." :' . - ·-- . ,. ;;. . , , < '' 1 . '-. 0 . ..·...- . t 'i'~:.:• ~ _'.· · •~.. ' ' '•' · _- ,.' • -,' • • ~~' ' . ;a·, >~~ ~ { it\ l-·., i" le • '," ',' . ' - ..._ ·• .•.• tJIU;: I • ot the appellant l'N1melwgonga 11 and then the Prosecution Witnesses saw tbe · appellant deliverw tne bl.ow on the de.oea.eed.•s a.rm. ·Tba.t waa the second blow, as the deoeased. ba.d by then been injw:ed. on the be.o'k or tbe hea.d.. 'me a»P•l~\ must ha.v• 'been at the be.ok ot tbe dQOON8d \hill, b t w111· le~d. suppo~t to th~ p ~ u t ~ eYidenoe tbe.t the d.ootMtd. b&l4 t~ed to ~•t'l1im to tho ho"WW,: 'l'no a p ~ t bm.cl ~ dgne °-' ~j~ or wu.ioe on him• ~ 11 I,ike the trial j\Uige, we e.1:e sa.Uat1ed t~t t'cif WQR •~um'biw utte:r:ed. ,oui~ 11ot ,oPPtiiute lesel inow.t u to juotU'r an •'bte,Qk w a · bea.Vf st~, 'l:ne e.ppQll.ent. had lied a.e HSlirdG the nwiut Qf bloW.J tie deUvoied and--tliepqsition o! the·aneased: vie a vii lu.motlt whim be bit 0 I ': i t:t,.e deoeaaed. on t'ne head.- 'nle trial o®" bad. fo\md. hSl.1 vwdon to 'be a I ' . . pack or lies, and in our view, his version doH not o:e•t• Son 'Wl • dout tbat what he said. col.lld poseib:1¥ be true. Wo ue aa.t:l.isfitd tb&t he WU clearly the 86sreesor and in all the oi:c\\lllatancea we boUeve thf.t·'be bad 11 e.tte.ckctci the decea.eed beoa.'I.We as the appellant ea.id- himaoU 1 hit hiDl beo~\Ute he provoked. m~ !iratly he cha.sad me from his bom•••••••••n As tbe appeUe.n~ and the daoeased oL\1219 out of the boWlt tb.t appollant oollllllittod th~ unprovoked. att~ok on tha 4eoaaaa4 w1th • dlDgero\UI weapon and U11la.w!ully O!i!,U&Od. hl.e death. b oonv1oUon fo:i: mw:d.e; wu j\11St11'ied. on.d the appeal is d;Ls~ee;, i., ' I ( '' I ' ,, I It . A, MUSTArA Jpsrr1g; ;:~ Aa!Wt f I I I ! I r I, 1r A, M. A, ·oMAR .. JUSTICE OF APPEAL t t: /,f. L· ... .•. · ' ~ c:h ....... ' ; ,, ,I . • ,. 'I I' • \tfii£SI $.11 J.JdldS<I 0 (a!.!!OSH 1! • r) . ;f/..e-/' .,, I I I 1