19900802 TZCA Arusha

, I J IN Tl-{E COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA (CORAM: KI_,0Af.iq_A, J .A •J RAMADHANI z J. A., And Ml\[ZP.VAS, J .A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 73 OF 1990 , FRANCIS TITUS M\·ACHA. • • 0 G • 0 APPELLANT. AND THE REPUBLIC • . 0 0 0 • o~oeoO• RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Sentence of the Higq Court of Tanzania at Arusha) (Mus hi, J.) dated the 15th day of August, 1989 in Criminal Sessions Case No. 83 of· 1989 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT KISANGA, J .A.: This appeal ·arises from the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment passed on the appellant following his conviction on the charge of manslaughter to which he had pleaded guilty. The appellant who is over 50 years of age is the father of the deceased, a boy aged only about 7 years. On the day of the incident the appellant returned home and found the deceased absent. In addition he was informed that the deceased did not attend school either. / When the deceased eventually came home the appellant,chastised him by beating him using sticks, fists and kicks. The deceased tried to run away from the onslaught, but as he did so he fell on a , to stone and sustained serious head injury which led/his death • . . . /2 ----- .. 2 The appellant tried to r::trieve the life of the deceased by trGating him and then taking him to hospital but in vain. In meting out th2 sentence, the learned High Court Judge observed that whG.t th2 o.ppclL:mt did wns f a.r beyond what was expected of a f~ther, and th3t th2 attack on a child of such t12nder age wa.s most inhunnn. But the app2llant's act of chastising the child for playing truancy is som2thing which the society approves of. The only valid criticism is that in so chastising the dece~sed, the Gppellant over-reacted by acting viol~ntly, as evidenced by his use of fists and kicks. '.!e think that such criticism could not be a sufficient basis for imposing such a stiff s2ntence of 20 years' imprison- ment, especially considering thaiftje fists 3nd kicks were not the direct and i,nmedi-3-te cause of the f3.ta.l h2ad injury. Mr. M.K. Kimomogoro, th~-Ie~rned advocate for th2 r2sp6ndeni Republic took the view that the sentence W3S manifestly excessive, and we entirely agree. On that account we feel justifi~d to interfere. Accordingly the appellant's prison sentence of 20 years' imprisonment is r~duced to one of 3 y~ars' imprisonment. The app2al is therefore allowed to this limited extent. Dl'.'T:2:D at ARl.JSH.'\ this 2nd day of .\ugus t, 1990 .' R.H. KISANG.\ JUSTICE OF A?PEAL ,.\.. S .L. R:\.M.·i.DI:-L\NI JUSTICE OF AP2EAL N • S • iViliJ Z~\ V..\S JUSTICE OF .:lP~:JE1:1L I c2rtify that this is a true copy of }he __o c 7 . /~1a,~- I 1 (s.s. K.UJ/,GE) / - DEPUTY r1.GGISTRAR '