19890914 TZCA Dar es Salaam6

(CORliMa MIJCtJ1E 2 J.f._ 2 0Mfi.R 2 J .11.. 2 lmd MF1J.ILA 1 J .A.) CRIM:m AL 11.PPElJ. NO .127 bF 1988 /IN'l'HOMY STlllPtnlN • • • t • , , . • • • , t t • • t t IJ'PlllU.iAN'l' ' \'~fi:'11141 m Ditmi. ro11 ow romito r,nosl!Xltn.110Ns ••• ·• ••• runsPON!mNT 1 (Appeal from tho judgment. of tho High Court of Tanzania at Dar cs Saie£1D) (Bo.h..".ti. J ,) · dated tho 19th da.y of .t.:uguat, 1988 in Cri~inal Sessions Case No,72 of·1985 JUilGMliNT OF TTIE COURT This appeal arises fro::a the appello3l'.lt 1 s conviction for the murder of a. fellow prisoner, a inc.n called Dl,iIEL Mi.SJL"J,mf,, who, on 'tb.o eviden~e, 'w9-s .a hunk of a man and a. bully, 'Ihe Eie;h Court sitting a.ti D?,r es Sa.le.am (llahe.ti, J,) condcnMd the o.ppeU.o.nt to deo.th ooneequont ~on hie oonv4.0tiont t\M, him rwp1ml 1JCI tht,. 0oUlt '11\JJ DPl\11\lllhll 1' ~a .. Na11,n, : . loamed. Oounaol, from tho Ta.nz1111in. Lo££O,l Corporation, J'or tho Ropu'blio Ml•. $h6i,t l@aI'ned .stntf.) Attorney, suppo_rted t'..ie trial Court 1 s decision~:: .. , :1.hc trfal was very. brief .be~cuse no prosecution wi-~l'less was callecl.. 1fia.'cters not in die:pute, under section 192 of-"'cb.e Crim~al Prcc"Ochwe'.-1.ct,--k..e,luded t~e f.'.1.Ct th..~--'c!lcLappellant killec1.- ·i;!ie .deoeasodJ and the extra judicial statement the app0°1lo.nt made to a Jus"'cice of the . Pea.ca in which ~e related tho .ciI'CUills'~ruices lea.d:i,ng to !us hitting tµe ' I . deceased With a piece of water pipe at Ubena Prison ·,on 21st October, 19&1,.: ·,, . . : .b.s a. resul'c, the trial really centred on appreciating t!io extra. judicial sta.to:nent in t~ie light of t4o appella.11t 1 s elo.boration of it ill his brief defence in Court. • 'It i . ·•·' ,. --~~-~--s.-_ - - - · - --~-.~_..-.__,_,_,._,· - ~ - ~ - - - - - ~ . '·1~·.,"tt-~>t" 1,-e-~- i' ::E':. ~~ ~.~\-~._- ,;,'r \, •. i •..• • • ~ ~ ,... ~---:~""":"".I\• •..;.,t;...,,.,,:•"'.';;~r::~...-..J I, ···=--- t It_:was accepted at the trial. that the deceased, described as 'very _.' •. ,{ .r' fat and tall 1, and a prisoner like the appellant was, had the duty of . l 1 . dishing out food to fellow inmates and that he wanted to use that position t to subdue the appellant into subr.litti.ng to be sodomized by the deceased• I it. -,. !lhe deceased made Glear his determination to use his "food-power" to I. -~ \, achieve hi~ objeot by donying th~ appellant access to food. On the 1_ 1' i I, tatetu.l. ~ tlte ~1iwoaset1. rnM.Llo Ma dolllh'• le110,m to 'bll• 11.ppoUM,t as ~ &o fivo tio100, :l.rn.1luding ~!wee tir.1eo ~t'\to!J:I 11or,u1 oiil1el1 i.,ol"aon in authority • r·· had gone to t:te o.ppella.nt 1 s rescue o.nd given him some food to eat. ·On .. ' the last encoui1ter the deceased procisod to apply the. squeeze the ! ,t --,•I following ·week ·when it would be his ( official) turn to dish out fcod and said ·faat he would harrass tb.e appellant into agreoinc to the buggery:, lI (__ Ii1d.espa.rati~i1 fa0 a.ppollan(~iod off !l water pipe which was hanging I ,.. loose and hH tl1e deceased with it on -~b.e head. From the· medical evidence t ) it is clear that he !lit twice ·and qui-to he.rd: tho po.rietal and occipital I \ ' bones were cru.s!.ied and portions of the brain matter were discharged from • l ·, th~ slcull. The appellant mist hai~e- used consiclera.ble violen~e, there is I ! no doubt a.bout that, bu:~ we :-iri.ve asked ourselve6 whether raalice aforethought I ; wa.s es'~ablishod. We have oomc out with the oloa.r viow that the ,deoeased1 El .! j Mtt.1 wora oo:tr011\1Jl.;y. prOVPCJA11iVo a.nd tllA'llt l\ll m.1u1 MdM1~wt 1714t 1.t, bi waa ': 1-,t' 1;·1 l hh own 11,rollHau~ of hiu ~tt11\'ilh• tl.1bo 011.101.lmota.nOGII wore t1w;ih that the ·: l le, j i a.ppella.nt was uHiL1ately thrown into o. transport of passion and that he . I • l ' was under provocation when he hit the deceased. It is probably not ; without significa,100 that all. the t!u:ce assessors· who sat with the learned ·i ' judge opined t!lat tl.J.e appellant was Not Guilty of f,furclere ' '\ ./ We are satisfied tb.nt the evidence did n9t disclose tho offence I 1 .., j·\ of mu.rde:i:' and tb.at only canslaughter wo.s proved. Acoordi~ly we allow ... the appeal to tile extent of quashing t!:o conviction for· mu-der and substitutine for it a conviction for Manslcughter. . •••••/3. l' i /i : ·, r • ... I [ !' ·~ -- L·---~- _______7 ;_; _J - 3 - ( We set aside the sentence 0f death.and because the appellant hao been ( , in custod,y for almost :five years now, and in view of the peculiar I . ,- . I oiroumstanc.ea_o_f .thi-a--case, -we iclpose--a.--ja.il -tum of two· yec:rs from-the 1·, r-,. j• date the appellant was convicted, 19th August, 1988. • ll!i.TED at ·DAR ES SiJ..i•..i..M this 14th day of Sept8Llber, 1989• I•• l I • : ! I @STJOE OF ~ . I -. fl. J,l .A. 0141\R JUST! CE OF 11.P?E.lL ----1.111. -11IFJ..LILA JUSTICE OF 1,PFEl'J. I certify thc1.t this is a true cop-.r of tb.e original • .• --1 .. -·- - ----· . . _:__ - ~ !...., __ .,.. -