daniel dominico vs republic 1987 tzca 72 28 may 1987

IN THE COURT OP APPEAL OF TAiSAKIA AT DAK E'.i Jj&Mi CORAM » > J■ ? KISAHGa.^ J «a» And. OMAR 9 J >A» CRII1INAL APPEAL -U. 63 OP 1986 DANIEL DOMINI CO. . . . . . . . . APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC........ . . . . . RESPONDENT (Appeal from the conviction and Sentence of the High Court of Tanzania, at Singida) (Bahati, J.) dated the 8th day of August, 1986 in Criminal Sessions Case No. 45 of 1985 JULCnlENT OP THE COURT MAKAME. J »A.; In this appeal lir. Banturaki, learned. Counsel for the appellant, could not find much to say in favour of his client. W© are hardly surprised, Mr, Kyaruzi, learned State Attorney, supported the decision of the High Court Sitting at Singida. (Bahati, J.) in which the appellant was found guilty of Murder and. was duly sentenced to suffer death. The deceased was the appellant’s paternal uncle's wife. At the trial the appellant admitted to have killed the deceased but he claimed to have been inebriated and provoked, when he did so, He twice cut the deceased -/ith a bill-hook on the head and the cause of death was given as shock as a result of severe haemorrhage because of severs cut wounds. The deceased and her companion, P.W.1 BASILISA rTnY^ANT, had gone to the appellant's mother's place for some liqour but there was only liqaur which was not. wholesome - so they decided to leave* As they were leavixti’ with the deceased behind P.W.1, the appellant follow?;. J ^;r;:yirig a- bill-hook. P.W.1 noticed this but it did. not alarm her Sas said, because there had been no quarrel, /das, when the appellant caught up with the deceased, he slashed her with tho bill-hook. All the relevant witnesses, that is P.W.1, P.W.2 RAJ ABU A L M S I and the appellant’s own mother, P.-W.4 BASILISA PI1ILV., said that there had been no quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. P.W.1 is more specific, that there had been nc verbal exchange at all between the deceased and. the appellant immediately before the assault. After the appellant had dealt the deceased the blo\^3 he threatened P tW t1 with the bill— hook and told her not to make any noise. In his evidence the appellant said that when the deceased was passing by the appellant?s house she complained that the appellant’s mother had denied her a drink. Then the deceased used vulgar language -"r&xmdu wa Mamako:! - which annoyed him so he cut the deceased. lie also said he had been drinking liqour for some nine hours that day. The trial court considered the two defences put up by the appellant and was satisfied th:~t none would avail the appellant. The learned trial judge was satisfied that there had. b.: \ no insults whatsoever. He also e;:pressed theview that even if, for the sake argument, there had been the abuse alleged by the appellant, the appellant's reaction was disproportionate. We respectfully agree and wish to add that, for our part, on the evidence, we are satisfied that the appellant alleged falsely that the dec-eased had abused, uim. There was in our view no provocation at all. As for drunkenness, we shs:.’3 the view expressed by the High ^ouxrt that that defence was not available to the appellant. He himself owned that he was not all that drunk and that he knew what he was doing. He also had the presence of mind to give the bill-book to his sister lo go and throw -away into a pond. We are satisfied that the appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. DATED at DAE EJ SALAAM this 28th day of Kay, 1987. ' . II. Ma ICAHS .-'T S U ^ ; OP APPEAL n. H. ICEoAIIGA ■JTVS TICE OF APPEAL A . M. A. OIIAR JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a. true copy of the original. (J. H. 1-130EPE) DEPUTY REGISTRAR.