19890907 TZCA Dar es Salaam

~~-· ·- ~-,.~ ~ -""""•··•1\,· ~- . ..,)- -.- -· ___.__ ~~- ·~~- ...., ·-. ·-~ ,., . -· .. --··-,_ ... ·- IN --TB:;J·· -cotJRT--{/F· ·.APPE.U..:.oF--T.ANZ/.NIJ1. . ·- ···~...,..-......... -· AT ii.RUSH.A (COR..M: -- ICTSJ.NGJ. J .1.. RliM,:.1m:,11rr J .L. Jl.nd I.fil'~LIL'. J. •, CRIMINJJ. l~P&',.L NO• 73 OF 1988 LEONI.HD ICTSl.RIKi. MREiIT • • " i,P?ELIJ.NT VlllRSUS ·i Til!l) RD1PTIBJ.JO i1 • I I t f i" • , , aJ:Jl3PONDlllNI1 (1.pJ>oal from the oonviotion of the Hie,h Court of Tanzania a.t •.rushs, I (EuiTJ.O i J" l _,.. __ Criminal SeGDiona-Oase Noo 91 of 1982 ~ J ' . I JUDGMENT OF THE COURT KIS.i.NG!. 2 . J • .An s This is a_ tragic case in which the appellant killed ·is• own ..j little child aged about~ yea.rs, and-was con,ricted of murd. rand sent0n~ed to death. oonviction and sontonoa. The appellant is now appealing against the j ·t We have to s'bute at 01tdu tha:t thr:1 a.pp.:,o.l is entirely devoid of merit. The appollant 1 s oonviotion was based on evidence of his two young sons a~d 11 and 8 yea.rs respeoti 0 who su;r the appellant hitting th0 doc~asod with t. etiok on t I heE.d., and tho docoasod collapsing to death. Thoy also saw appellant buryine -tho deceased c.ftor ·mo killing. ···---- . \ . was duly corroborated by tho post mortem examination report 'oh shows that the doooasod sustair10d a hole in tho right temper a.roa. of the head, with tho brain matter oozing outo The appellant Qhose to say nothing in his defence., In those circumsta.ncos, the o nvidtion was amply justifiodo • . . j .,....... , ,. . __ .... .:.:.:..:.. __,_ __ .__.,.,- - - i_ 2 - { _Il'ldaadJlr.. c•. J. Ma.ruma"--ttppoaring £or the appellant- this. appeal oonooded that the appellant killed· the deoeo.sod, bu1; to roly on the dofenco of insa.ni tyo Mro Maruma. who had _oon tad the defence at tho trial however did not raise ~ho dofonoo of i thoro,_ and upon our perusal of tho rooord wo oen find not.hi in support of suoh dofonco. Oh ihe contrary tho a.p!)olla.nt's . digging a grave and burying tho docoa.sed, Ms throat to kil if' ho disolosod i;ho inoid:ont io t1n10no rmd hio runnins aw . P.W.3, a. neighbour nnd rolativo, cnmo to his homo a.:f'tor tho killing olearly show '!oat ho knew what ho was dpfog and that what h was doing was w:rong. Indood during the trie.l tho appellant was, on • Maruma.'s application, committed to Isanga. Institution for obsorvctio a.rid. report, but tho psychiatrist's report on him (Exh. P.3) sho s that tho_~ppell@i.J..ra.s sane at t.li.o ti1DC·of oommi tting the offono • On tho ovid<mco boforo us we oan find no roason for holding a. · fferon" _ opinion. ' In the alternativo, Mr. Mn.ruma oontendod thet the pr socution had faiied to provo malioo aforothoue;ht on tho part of tho ppella.nt I .1 whioh fa.iluro would warrant roduoing tho offonoo from murdo to ma.nsla.ughtor. .L.ga.in there oa.n oo no mori t on tllis submissi n. PtW,l a.nd P,W,2 toatif'iod the,t tho 0,ppolla.nt hH tho doOolltJ c1 on tho hoad using a big stick, and. P.W.1 a.d.dod thc.'!I blood cemo out. That blow must have boon inflictod with much force which fr ctured tho skull and causod a hole in it. With such a blow tho ap olle.nt must have in-l;ondod, at loo.st, to cause grievous ha.rm to i:ho deceased, and thet oonstitutod malice aforethought in terms of soctio 200 (a) of ~~Ponal__Code. / 000000/3 I \ ... • i I ... ,,. .... Counsel .turthe.r -submi ttc.,d that the pI'Oseoution ha:d, taile_d to prove motive on the pa.rt of the appellant for killing his own so I~eed, he went on, the killing was.completely senseless whi~l;· to negative malice a.forethought. The answer to that, however, 'i that 'll?ld.er our orimina.l law there is no duty cast on the prosec to pro~ motive. The killing may-:eppear senseloss ojl~the faoe it, but the killer maY: pe_r.fe.4-tly well have his undisclosed reas er motive for the killing. Thero is h~wevar, ono aspect of Mr. Maruma. 1 s submission on this issue which has oome morit. He ri I l t' oontondod that tho appollant 1 s conviction proooodad on the ba.si ; ; that tharo was motivo for tho killing when thoro wa.s no evideno ill . (L· support of the same. Tho record clearly shows that both tho as ossors j: end. the trial jud.eo bo~viq i101iod on tho viow that tho 1 &i1Pol1 t ' ::I killod his child on euspioicn that tho ohild wa.~ not ~irod by h . :•, • •" . ._!. . \ .• I" ':'· :But, as rightly submi ttod by Mr. Ma.ruma, no ovi~anoe 1fa,s led· to . . . . ~ ~ ·" 1~\ /.: <f~tabliah aziy such suspiciol;l b~ the appellant. ~~~~o~, th~- f ;! judgo misdirected hersoit' and the assessors on that issue. Ho U4•· I'.. we a.ro sa.tisfiod that had aho pro·porly dirootod horsolf by nt-t rolyi.ng_on a.ny_mo.:tive, the conolus-iQl¼-Would still havo. boon t • -• - • • ~ I • • ,._ • .. , • ,..., t . ,:' ,..... ~: 'I• :·. j\ ~; ,, r, \J. 'f .That was s~t~oiont to d~spose, of this appa_E:,~,. bllt wo f appropriate. to comment on <?no or twC? a.spocts of procoduro in it r. ? oa.s?·:~oh were not_ entirely satisfao~ry~ ~o. proaocutirlg oo ~-14~.. openµ1g ad.dross gave an outlino of tho. QllSe for "14.0- Ro :I ~whio~ he stated tll,at thor~ op.st2?- a. ~!31lllq~r~ta.nding 1?etw~ n_ ~e a.pp.ell.ant ,and hi~ wifo ariBing out .. of a.-suspiai.on: by tho. ~ appoll.Mlt that ono of tllo:Lr obi34:qn_ !,o, tho dooo11od 1n tlu.1 oaso, was ~ot his ohild booauso the child was dark sld.m:>,od whor?a~ all tho other. ~hi~dren_y9r~_of_ a._fair 9oniplax±~~- · F2;Ll!)wµig, tho misundo~!:J~ OOt;JlSOl. OO!?,tin\J.od,. :tho. w:&o 'l t _; . • .I. •••.• /4 I' . .. . . .! 'i .. 1t './ ~ .· ·/ . ,- __ __,...--· --· . .. I I - 4 - ' ,",,'· ' ·• tho ma1rimonia~ liomo, leaving all lAOir ab..ildron wi 1lJ:l. tho appoluJnt, ' .~ . . lt .r and while sb.o was thus away tho appellant.killed :tho·dooeasodt ~ ·_¼ ovid.onoo we.El ad.d.uood.; howovo:t', -.s to 'iho o:JQ. ■ totU'lo ot tho allop •,i·;1 l' suspioion by tho appellant, although ovidonoo was lod to the offJct \~ t ) ) tiI'• that at tho material time tho w:i,fo had left tho matrimonial home -~ As statod before both tho -\;rial judge and tho assessors found H '1' the killing wa,s motivated by tho appollantts alleged suspicion, \ Mr. Marurna submi ttod 1ha t in· taking that View they must have boo 'JI 1 inf'lua?!Qod b;y:_tho...pr.osooutfi&-t.s opolttng achiross which in Useit· not ovid0?1Co, ,l, ,)• c. ~ We-~ that thoro is merit in this complaint. Tho purp~se l I of an oponing address by the prosecuting .counsel is to givo a; bi:td's eye view of tho case which tho prosocution hopes to establish a.tithe trial. Tho address is intondod to faQili ta.to tho undorstand.ing I of. tho ca.so by tho court, ospocially tho asaossore who havo not 'f r!~; i." . [','. ,,~. 'c t,he advantaso of roa.dins tho dGJJ?o•:I. t1ona 01atoro hMd, l3ut it .I . ' bo strossod that wb.a.t tho prosooutor statos is not ovidonoo. Rather t .',I r.1 is q it is a SJ'?lOpsis of tho ovidonco w4ioh ho hopos to ad.duoo. This, 'for an J ii, ~~ obvious reason bocauso his ad.dross is basod on his reading of th4 polioo sta.tomo~t or dopositiona, but thoro is no gua.rantoo that his witnossos will stick to what thoy statod in thojJ, po).ico statCIJont. Indaoci soma . \ 'I I -------· . · witnoSl:IOS'-al'e Iqrown-to turn hostilo at tho tria-1 while 0th.ors oollapso miserabl,y under orQas-examination. So to all intents and purpos s tho prosocuto;p 1 s opoping addxoss is simply an outl:j,no of tho ovidono which he :tiopos ~1;1,t his wi tnosses wil+ oomo to givo at tho trial On that ~couni;f, t;-eroforo, tha prosooµ\~g oou,naol should seek \f. . ensure two main -tp;Lngs. First, ho shoµ,l.d tl>y ap far as :possiblo ~c confine Ilia add;ol:ils to mattors wbioh uo not in disp~to o:r OlJCln · o h ~ • .AJ1d p~oondly ,, ho sho~4 •o~ to onaui10 "'11,'\ ho oe.111 1411. tnoasoa ' •••• /5 1\- '\ },_ I,_., J . ., .\ ,;jjl r ·l~-; • ~ .' 1.t. ,.,uiJ' ~~-- - ·.. ,,,_a· I:. : , :.:~it' ·;!:;;;r - .. ··- -~,~~--- ~----· J-~· ·• ¢.~-... ;.,~:~-:-.1··•; ' . . t; '. 5 'lfho will ool!lo to doposo to tho matters he hf',s ·roforred to in his address• In tho pr0sont oa.no ibo p:i,1o•oou'i1ns rrbtornof :t'ailod. to d.o with the unfortunato result that ho rnislod j.ho jud.go ond 'the assessor into relying on information which was not given by witnesses who had personal knowledge of the same. Prosec',ttors a.ro., thorpforo, e4,vised to observe tho correct practice booaus0 failure to do so may lead _to serious consequences. No serious consoquoncos followed in this case baoauso tl10·-ma;ttor73'ol"eforrod to by counsoJ.° and wrongly relied on the court was not a grotmd or basis for the appellant's oonviotion. ·Il is pert~nt to point out hore that al though Mr. Ma.tuma. -I' rightJy made this complaint, ho himself was not ontirely wi lb.out to 'i in -the matter. As stated earlier, Mr. Ma.ruma. conducted the appella.n 1s dofenoo at tho· trj,al. Now, whon at tho Oloso of tho case for both sidos ho-~~'\ that tho ovidonoo adduaod foll short ot wa; tbo proaoouttng ol}lsel bad 11tlltad, thotl ho ,llad. a dut.Y to addra■a the 0 ./1 oourt on tho point, and to urgo tho oourt not to roly on an:, matter stated in tho opening ad.dross which was not born out by -tho evidence .. . This., however, Mr. Ma.ruma did not do.. At tho close of tho evidence i . ' .' simply informed 'tho court that ho had no submission -ho mako. Wo a.re quite aorta.in that had ho ma.do a subcission and urged the point· as · indicatod, tho court would have aocodod to it, and tho present diffiou+ty would havo boon avoicl.od. Whilo on ')bis same point wo wish to morition 'only in passing t it is somewha.j disturbing to note tho growing tendency for counsel these daiYs not l? wish to oake final addrossos or submissions at, the close of jho ca.so for both ~idos. This has boon noted in ma.n,y- puts of' tho country. U should bo boi.-n in ra1nd tll1.1,t·•o0\.UUl0:L submission, aro ot tromOlldout assiotn.ttoo to tho oo\U't• Oounaol tn thoir _final a4drossos aro mea.ni to holp tho 9ourt to digest am. ... ·••••/6 - ... ,, ·. "·41•, ., ~-/~/ '/ • 1. . ,ti" ~.:.---.:-p- . ,.•- ·-.!,' ,, - 6 - understand,~- ca.so~ They a.:ro ooa.nj to highlight poi~ta of diffic~y touching on~--oviduncro in·i.l:ro case or·on·tho law applicable l=> iw- . to puj forwa.I'd. proposals as to how tho cou:it should rosolvo tho ,,,, p' .'1' ., · diffioul tios, Mc>ro of-ton tl:An not l!J.ose diffioul ties a.re not easy to resolve, a.rld, counsel havo to do rosoa.rch :IJl tha course of preparing .·., for their fil'lpi su"Qm:i,ssions, But what wo have noticed is "!!b.e growing tondoncy for counsel to decline ·to r.iake subi:tj.asions oven in 'ihe oase involvil:lg obvious difficulties. Thal dooa not reflect woll on·the ., prot0sa:l.on1 ll11d. oounsoJ. oho,a,d bo r~rilitldod. of tho (lt'ou1i impo%'1ln011i of '·~ . their rolo in assis+,ing tho court to ·a.rrivo a1 a just decision in the e. ) (.;, · AccorclingJ,y we strongly rocoLll:lond that tho pre.ctico t subIJissions at tho close of tho caso for both sides should be onooura, Tho record shows that tho loar1:1,sid trial judge did no1 give t opportt\tl;i.ty to tho appellant to obtioot t o ~ of J:.o assessors. We .. 0. ·t doa.lt with this iia.ttor at some length duri?Jg tho current si t1ing of ------- . · this Court in C,V,iminal Appeal No. 76/~8 Sanwol NdoWJl: v. Ro a.rising :frC>m ... ' . . ,,, tho decision of tho sa.mo jwlgo. 4 In tha~ a~paal we pointod out the orr~r ., •",i:,. ~-,' and indioatod th9 corroct procedure 1=> be followed. Wo nood not rope ,i. _., ..... e:- it horo, but wo f;:hould o~phasizo tho neod to adhoro to ito ~· P,W,l and, P,W.2 wore children of tender yea.rs a.god 11 and 8 yoctrs ,, 'h . )f rospootivol.y• J;n ordor to cl.ooido on whet.ho.I' or not P.T·f•l wa.. Onpa.blca ot .g!Vin~ ovid,omo on oa.th 01 a.t all ilho loa.tmod trin.l judgo hat.Idled 1 tho chi.let in th9 following r.ianners- "P.Tf,l; Expori Leona.rd, Tan~Wan, Christian, 11 yea.rs, aftor satisfying tho court tl:lat ho !mow~ tho ooaninl;. of a.n oath and thu duty to say tho t~l4, sworn stetos1" r;rho se.mo l)l'ocedµJ.o wes adoptod in respect ot P.W,2, That was fa.r fro • I I 1:1a.tisfa.ot,q;ry, Tl+~ treatment was too cas~.L Ji, similar situation a.rote . {· in Cr. App. No, 7'7/88 Chausiku II,assa.ni ,j;• R,! which we dealt with durJ.ng , tho cm-rent si'bltlJ,ng of this Court, agai,p arie.1,ng trom tho doc:ision', ofl tho , •• ~.11•_,.... .:.--· ... • ,,. ~---I_!/... ;/-~------ /~ ' / _ _.,,,--· .~ •" -""'✓" liall§J"'"tii 1f,_.,,,____,_~IM-l'i .. ~•-.._.....,. ... ·-~-- _... - ..ce:-· s to ..................... •• it~t, _,_.iliil.....-- 1. -~ .€. • • ...,.!f"':.:...::t-~ ,. . . ii ' _,, I ., -,WCSIIJf'.at:11:i:f&i ~; 5 . .. 7 .. ea.mo judge. Thoro wo sot out tho corroc·t. procoduro to bo adopted i a ~attor, and we trust that that procedure will bo followed in the uture. In :passing the sentenco the trial judge said: "Thero is only ono sen'\anco for murdoro I sontenoe tho accused 1o death•"• ---~ . Age.in "ibis is wrong, and in Chausiku's oaso ci tod above whero tho (', ' I• mattor clso arose, wo drew ~~o a1tontion of tho loo.rnod judge correct format of tho sontonco as provided und.or section 26 (1) o Ponal Code. lie can do no more hero than ~~ emphasize tho need to I /' · to tho p:ropor procoduro as recognized by tho criminal law and pra.o ice of tho courts of this country. C Tfo wish to r.ui.ko it .Plain, 4<nrovor, tha.t tbo110 o:wol'I wh:Loh o •c havo pointed out did not, whether ie.ken individually or togethor, a.ffact tho sound.nose of tho appollant•s conviction. And with that r~mark we conclude tho mattor by dismissing tho appool.in its an"droty. .,), '. '.:?/~~ ' ... , # A. • RiJ,Il.DIUJf.I :nmr,om RZ w111i • /bl-J~- ( s. s. KL.IJJ.~ ) DmPUTY REGISTRl.R • ',(.