19890829 TZHC Tabora

AT TABORA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (TABOf-.i~ .REGISTRY) CRIMIHAL SE3;-jIQi.~ C•.,_..)E ::O 96 Of' 1987 T.JE REFJBLIC VERSUS RAMAJ1i:AiVI JUDGEEENT ♦ • The accused per;-Jo:;1 in ·t::.is case, Rashidi s/o Ramadh.ani, stands cha,rged with the o:f:fe~;ce of rnu.rder c/s 196 of ti.le Penal Code. The Repu1?lic ~1as alleged t].1at on or about 25th day of Apri1 9 1987, at :M'.ambaJ.i village wi·G)::i;:1 }:Jzega District, Tabora Re:gion, tl1e accused murdered o·ne l'~agoli d/o lJtingwa,. The accu.sed de:.:1iect th~ charge. The prosccL;_tion 1 s evidence, from a total of five witnesses, is to the following effect: t:.,.e rlecea.:sed was accused.' s gra ..,dmother and both used to live in Mai11bali vill.;.ge. Also living in the same village was a.ri aunt of t>.e accused, one Ifoad.ija d/o Ramac:l.~:salli (P 0 W.l)o ' On 19th A:pril, 1987, a·c alio: .t 6.oc p.,rn,, PoW.l returned home f:r-om her ·errands 1 On a:;:-riving L.o.:,e, she sa.w t;:_e_ accr.:u-.:;cd assaulting the deceased with· a stick, She scolded -;;: ~G acc,:i.scd a:1d tolrl '..drn to stop assat.u:iii,1g the deceased, and the accused obeyeo.. The accu..:ood sat down while the deceased run into the bush 1 When P.W.l as~;:eci ,, f: accu.sed why he :,ad assaulted the deceased, the accused. did not reply; instead .".e bit his f6refinger aHd etarted weeping. At about 7.00 p.m. a cell leader~ w~,.o did ;.-10t testi:f:'y~ called. ou.t to P1W1 l. and told P. W., l t: :a.t tl...e acct.:tsed was assaultii~g the deceased again• F.W.l I a...d t:1.e said cell lead.er went to. where the deceased was and fo.:,11.d her in a serious co;1dition. She had. bruises 011 t~:e back a.,,d on one of lwr arms., :.1:1.:c cell leader and FoW.l did not see the acc;ised. The two wonien then washed tlic deceased. with. warm wo:iier, and ;:iext day theJr took her to Ei. Wa.:r;cl Secretary, o;:,_, Samwel Ku.dem~· (F. w.4)., P.W.4 then .se,it for the accused. When the accused was broug:,.t before P. W.4 1 P., Wo4 asked ti1e accused about the alleged assa;1.1l t. 'l1ho aoou;:;ed admitted· '.,.avil.,f<. assau.l ted tb.0 dece,.,,sed. When P.W.4 a~(d him as to \•.-.-,, he assaulted the deceased, t:ie accused Gaid that he asaul ted her because she, had refused to cook :food. for him. The deceased w2,,s ~:'·.e.1 t2,,kc11 to Lambali dispensary 0 Thereafter thEa ac·cused was a1~rested 9 and ·ca,b::,., -~o Bu:i.;.:enc r'Jlie,c .3·:,ct.·iion. :Marobali Di8pcnr:.;,1ry is said to ;:_ave ·v,:cHten a referal letter for the deceased to be taken to :_-;uLot,o ::.:eal-LL Cer.·tre for ft!rther treatn1eat, but ·, appare:..rtly owing uO lack of tra..iS por,.; 1 the d.ec ea::rnd was not t:,.,ke:t.\ ther·e. I She di,ed at Hambali v-illago some five days later• l I, 2 The doctor w}w co ccfocted a post-moz,-cem examination on the bodJr of the deceased observed. -~:~at th<:l ~--0C8ciSCd. ::1al1 a ruptured spleen, a fracture of th8 10n u.lna.:r? a:c;.c~ bruises_ on t:'.:te left upper- o~I:f.d. In the doctor's opi!1_ion, the oaLsG of the - death of the deceased was _haemorrhagic anaemia,. In his defe,-ce or.:_ o=d;:1:, -~ , 2,cct.:,sd sc.1,irl tl.cat he drank local liquor during the da;; i:1 ,~vestiOil ~Crom s.oo a.m~ .till 6.oo Poffio At about 6.oo p.m., but' the deceased. told. :.,.im t.r.c1,·G t_'.,ere was no food. Being d:rcu11•~, -that reply infuriated him,. IIe Len :piclced Llp a stick which was lying nearb;:r and hit the deccJaSed ,;itl:t it twice. P. W. 1 the.n came and stopped him,· and. :1e stopped. The deceased tlwn ra..11. away to a neighbouring villa~e-Dsekcu.::.::. Later he loot:od .::o:c her so as to kiww what injuries s~:;.e J:::.ud su.sta.L_u~·.. but ho did not find :-_er 0 As he was very drunk 9. he went to his llou.sc a,,cl slept. He deniocl :_"';1/:rng ass2v1l ted liGr on two occasions. · - • IJ.1he accused \; ::.,t on to say that .i:1ext day he was told that t1~ decea::ic:~.- was at a neigr;,bom.~ii1c,; village- and that she wa.s .in a bad co;.idition. So ~1e borrowed a bic;rcle ,ci,:,_1c', went to TJsekenule village with many other people., They carried. 'the cleoeacad <.-1::_,_ t;!.8 bic;/c.le 2,:icl. tool,;: her to Nambali T',:_o accused. insisted. -;;:'""'t ho killed the deceased by bad luck, and that he assaulted her boca,:c::-~e a:.:.: was vc-,;:ry ct.·L nlc. 1 , ' , .. , and second gentlemcr;. aGsessors fook tho view tt.at _the accused 'killed the deceased.with malice afore-l;_,10u.gb{ and so was g!-1_iltJr of , murder. The -:. f. ', ' . third /;(:mtleman assessor took a di:Cferent view.; . ·Ile took ·~he view that f ,, the accused ddd not intend to kill the deceased. T'11e killin_g~ lie said, was without malice aforethoL1gb.t. In t:1is case 9 it is not in dispute that the deceas~d 7 Kagoli d/o I violent death; a,."1.d t,,_at it ' is the accused who caL1sc:d '.er CLC:~<!, .. ·G·:·.1.. c, What is s_e:i:'iously disputed. is wl1ethe1· or ;;1nt the accused killed_ deceased. with. ;i12,lice aforet:::i.ought .. T)::.e accused's story tl1c;,:t lie was very drurJc tl.1at day• is t:.,e same stor;;, which the acct.wed told P~W•4? ad5 there is no evido:ri.ce to, contradict it. The accused is saicl to have b,,e:'. a. 1~0accfu.l ,na..:'1. pl'ior -to his assaulting :i1is gra:c1d...mothor,, I~ t!::•.8rc/:o:r.·c 9 find as a :D3.ct ·:/::c'<.:c t}1e accused was dr1..mk tl-1-a-l:i day, Ti.1e questim::, t:,-_~3. v r1e::t arises, then 9 is whe-t>.er the 0 accused's dr1,mkenness or in-co:::icaticii lcil to total incap&oity e.uouut:i.n.:g to temj)Qra.ry insanity as provided by section 14 (2) (b) of the Penal Code 1 From tl!.8 evidence of P. W,.1 a:,,;d the evidence tlie accused gave before this court, I find as a fact JGLat the accused. was riot. insame, tempora.ril, 5 deceased? tLe accu.sed. ' irns:ied.i:;t.:.,:~~.' o·b0,:: cc.. Su.ch conduct, i:..1. iiff view, is. inoonsictent w:i.·cl.J. a,;:1 inttm-Lion 1 Dn t>e 1>1:r·c ot ·i,he assailc:111t, to kill his victim or cac0.:>:, _j_E1 [;Ii evo:;:s bodily l1a,::. m, 0 gentlemen a::-jsc.;co:;:-0:, '.::,J.ci'l: t\s prosec:xcioD l12,s failed to prove ma.lice guilty of .mu.rder ax,d so I c'L:i.ly acquit :~1im fortl~wi tL on t>.a.-~ c:..:.arge. NevertLeless, I &i1 satisfied tl::.c,t t:1.e killing was clearly u.::1law:;:u1. I therefore hold tl,,,tt tl1e p:::.0 osec:✓,tio:c1 has proved ti1e o:i'Ec::cc of find the aco1wed /';.Ltil ty of -tl1-e offe;_ice of manslaug::1ter co::i-c:ra:r;y to section 195 of ·0:ce Fenal Coc~e 9 an.d ~ cl~,ly convict 11im for;G').wit:J.# ~(/;·/.:·tr··/ . :. ~ lri ?,, .1'¼_{}I !' . ...., '/,; ,('•.! '- . .1.,t J3. '--Do C:'.I ·:fD.1A JUDG~ 29/8/39: T ,J. Judgment clelive:recl E,. open oi' Aut)il.st,. JTT.DGL 29/8/89 No previoc:.s record, My Lord. Mitigation z My Lord, we pray t:::.e Gov.rt to takG into consideration the fact t>at accLrned is vcr;y sorr;y,. Dcat> was unfortunate. The accused has been in c1,1Stody for o,"!Jv.:t two yea,rs ., Fe' >.,::.s been truthful throughout, IIe 6 In assessing sentence I L~~- ✓-e taken into aocou..nt all t~.ce rn i 1ii5at iag i;nprisonmer:~. R/Appeal e:i::pl.:,;,.i.;,.cd. ---- JUDGE 29.,8 .. 89 Gentlemen iU:.:G;essors ti:..anked a,1d disc ..arged. I .. , JUDGE / 4 / The same re;;iark 2..: 1Jlies as regards the vim·i' which t}i.is Court takes where a rup·cLLt'ed. 13plee:;.-: is the cause of death." This vie)-t was reiterated by •cice Gou.rt of Appeal of '11q,nzania in t;;.e case of Tunutu (supra},rr'tiere, the. Go,.,rt stated, at page 207 ~' 11 Finally_, we agroe wit:1 t'..1e views of the l~a.:crled judge that the na:~u:r·e of tlrn weapon t-1.sed by tlle appellant and the nat0.re of the wound□ inflicted b;y 1:.im, con?,i!ierecL toc;etLer with the conduct of the appella;:1t inunerliately !Jefore a,:.c:l. after the stabbing, olearl;y s'.:cow that the appellant ~1a,cl malice aforethoug:'::::tJj 11 J In the prese"1t o.;.,se 9 t:1.io a.CCL\,Jed plea.Ced, in effect, that by reasdn '• of into:idcation 9 :1e ·.-.r;:;,d i;:1:·;3,pable of forming a:;.1 intention to kill J!.il1e ~eceased or cau.so ~JGr 6TievoLJ.s bodily harm., fo motive l:ta.s been sb.own :f'or necessar3r to prove ,,'.•Yiiveo ::t,:c 1 as t:1e Gou.rt. of A;,peal. of 1:.Par~zania said in tl:,e rece;:1t case 0:,. ;~,e·c)~i1 :::,zoji Vo !J:'lle llepub).._ic_,c. A. T. Criminal A::;pcJ.l lfo. 5 of 1989& 11 In this ca.Ge Lot onlJ' is t;,.ero no motive or reason.L~ for the appellan:~ to have decided to so brutall;y slaughter hi"□ own sonll but in the i:torr.-:·,,~. continued life. It is true that lack o:i.· rno"Give is ,ot .imper-Ga,.,·;; conOltJ.S ion. .. o ~ al wa;y s so pa,rticu.1arly. in cases w:t,ere the a<~cused is cl1e,.r,.sed wit:W. tlie killii~g; 9f a close family member S!;lCh a wife 9 husband or c:.!.il<1. r1:11e absence of motive in .such cases s.:wL-,lcl lead to a strong p:cocu:.1ption of i:nnocence. 11 Another releva:c,.·G i'act;or is tho "'c;:,·pe of "\c;eapon used, the na.tm~e of the injuries inflicted o,. ·( _,:, < ,: ,c.,,.:ed 9 cbG. \;; ... :J part of t ... 0 bod.3 on wb.ich the blows were aimed~ ;~.'he weapon t1sec;:. he~ce 1%,B 2, :::i~ick~ Apart . from the fact · that the dece::.i.cec1 r-·,,·.crcc,,i.ne,.J. a. l:.'Etcttixe o:i:' -;;;.16 leit ulnar t!".e:cc is no evidence as t® t:·:0 :':li;:e oi -:;..•.,,,. fJtick i..WC~t. 1:i.11 .0 blows were not aimed at · 1 TUlnerable pa:;:-ts · sucl;. as the head, but were aimed on the back and the sides o:: the body.. Accordii:ig tu the doctor's repor-b 1 the accused had bruises on i~1e left J:egion a.nd 0,1 ,cl1e left upper eye-lid. According to P.W .. l a,Kl P.W.4y the d.eceased. l:..ad br1J.ises on the back a.nd . .,_ ~'1.discriminately. 1t., ir:3 cot,unon b10wledge that spleens repture wi_th even light e.i,j;ernal force where sue::; spleens are enla:rbed, From these :C"'c:bc;, '1;;.::.r~ ;o,;!1ot.1:1·;; of :i ,.:,:;:,cs ,t,Jod b~; the accused is not ascertainable. I·c if3 7 -bheref·ore 1 dii'tioclt to Wer malice· aforetllought from tlle type of wcs,::;on useo. 1 the force involved a:ncJ. the inj1,,1.ries i;:i.flided Ofl tlle deceased., (See :t~ .. v. Lnga.lo a,id OJchers, (1971)II.C. n.443) Then tl:i.eiso i3 ·GL,~; conduct of ·:;11e a,ccdsed at the time of assai..1.l ting 1 \\ 3 or o·ii::,.erwise? w,.:.e:,: Le . a·c·0ackerl t,:-.e deco.:,sed. Eowever, tl1e1°e which the influe;:100 of irito:z:ica·~i.on ·· .. ;·,1c:,:_;; :bend.er 2.11 accused pe:;;so:.i inca.p of forming ti_,c specific in-~e-./,;ion to kill or cause gTievous 'bodily In tl1e nase of _:;1 .. Vo Ricl1ard. :h;-,-ari 9 (1971) H~ c. D., 11. 458~ tl-..e killed his ovr.1 siote1" ;.,ud ~'.e pleaded ii.r~:oxication.. There 7 O~\fiL0",:e, J., ::::i.act "Intoxication ta:;:es va:cious forms, I·i; ma:J J.ead to total incapacity ainov.nting -~o ·ce,x:_:ior ~-~· i:1Dani t;r ( So 14, (1) or it may create a I conclition 1-/.ic:.: L1cb.ces e~;:t::ca-orc1.i,1a:c;'f viole:·,ce a ..d i:..;_ t;iis · connec'.;ion i·i.; _;1,_,,;; 1Joco;ne ,:-.."cleva.~t in d.e-cermining wh.e·i;~1er a person I in ,~L1..c:.1 a no.·,.l~..>:::i.o~_; i:_~ C-:~pc1.i:lle oL :L'orrnL1g- a opecific i11·\;en-cion 11 In consic,c:,::::· ::; -,~: ..c· :_(.;:: <; ;:; .::.:;,:; :c:.:1cd i;:1te;·1u.ed to kill or cause grievoLlS :)otli:;.-'. . >.cl,rm to ;•-is own sir;·~er one may be te,,1pted ·fo look Jor a kC,"~i-,;e .. 0 00 'l\:.el'8 ,·r,:t3 :to p::~evious quarrel be-~wcen therno I find tlla:i; b~, :;;eason of >is ;_·_ea;vy o..:::'inlcing, he acted ,.,r;:,ile ;3·0ill. 1.md.er infL,Gn,;G oi -~-- i::.; · in-c'cc:ic2.tion a.:.1.d 6..id. not form ·foe intention t.o l:ill or cc1c;.ue 6-ricvoL'D ·:Jodily :1.arm .. 11 T.J.e acc1;'.Sed in -~::a·~ ease waG convicted. o·r ma,.lf:llauj:1te.:r. The law also f:Ycx:;ef.l -~::,.at w:. c-:-~ an accL1.,Secl 1ierson pleads ·0:1at he by reaso:.:i. o:c' i\ uas, in-~o~~ioati01:, incapable o:f: :i:or;i1ing ·i;he speci:Zic inte11tio:.·_ \ req:t_-:.ired to consti·L0:l;e t~:.e of;_ e.,ce cha:c 6·ed,- -~h.e burden is upon tJ.~~ _ .. _,'. ... _ prosecution to ad.,lu.ce evidence to sr~ow th.at tb.e acoused was .•wt incapaci 1.,,., • ..., by ·intozicatio;:1~ (SGo :TLwutn s/o 1'I.nyas1.,le v. Republic,(1980) TLR 204). There is ;;;lso ::-,.,!;::-lo 21,t..1.'\:' ,')rit;:· :f,,:,_, -~:.' .e _pro:r0sU;ion t:ha·c malice aforethouglit ff1c:\; 1Je L1 el'reu. from -the ·c,7pc of weapon usedf tt:.e ma,:iner Ui wh\Ch H was so u.secl 9 a.c'ld. tl:..e pa.rt of tlie body which was injured. In the ccl,se of Tubere sLo Oclien v., R., 2 12 E.A.C1,A. 63, tl:.e Court had this to say: "Wit::.i reg.,,rd to the use of a stick in cases of homicide, this Cpu:rt ~1as ....1ot attempted to lay down any hard and fast rule. It Las a duty to perform in con;;iidering the weapon used, the manner Li w~_io.h it is u3ed. anu t:...1.e part of the body injured, in arrivir,g at a cor.J..:usion as to whether malice af'orethougb.t has been established, and it will be obvious that ordinarily a," inference of malice will flow more readil;y from the use, say, of a s:,::iea.r o:r a L~if c t.·~a,;1 {:-om the use o:I a stick; that is not to say ·i. 11a·i; the Court taleeo a lenient view where a stick is t:,sed., Ever;y ca.so has, of cou.rse, to be jv.di;ed on its own fact so