19900223 tzca dar es salaam

. . ' (Lp;_)eal from t)..:.e J\1.l\;we::·;; of the Ihg.'.1 Cm.c:..·t of Ta,m~;;~nia at :Da1· er., Sa,laai11 dated 23rd da,;;r of December, 1980 in ITi."·h Court Criminal f.;e2:sions Case r;·o. 20[8§. ':i!he appellai1t was convicJced o:Z ·c:1e 1--Itlrcler of his wife and ce~1te11ceC::. to cieat.h b~~ the :iigh Court ::::it<;ing at Dar es Salaam J:e loc~ged. thio appeal a.:;;c-1,inst both conviction and. -;;;.1e sentence of d.eath. ·?here were ;:10 eye witnesses fo ·c:ce l~illing of the deoea;:;ecl wo1:.1a::1 Siwajibu Kondo., 3he was stabbed i:t1 the privacy of their :1ouoe 9 all tl1e wiJc;,1essos wl:o ar::-ivec:.. at ·foe scene inclucling her cousin Ali Kondo (P.W.2) founcJ. !1er al:·eady r.rcabbed. However appellant adini-'cted sta1)bing his dcoeaoed. wife and. that she died of this s·cab woundo What was scriousl;y- co:ntoGted by tb.e dofe;,1co at the trial were the motive, circ-...1::.a::ite,nces and rc2..r,ons for the at·i.;ack. According to the p1·osecutio11 who 1·elicrl on tho deceased 1 s stater,rnnt whicD. was reduced into writing ancl ad.rnit·~ccl in evidence as a 0.;ying a;mounced ·cl1at she was leaving him on account of his drunlrni1;1eGs and 2 cruati·ol some beh.aviov.i·. But acco:td.i1'0 to tllG defence 9 the al:;pel la;_rt Inspector J1..1.i11ari.ne It1,mga., But w:1ilo still at Tumbi :lospital Ki1x•,ia 9 the c'Lecoasoci llad occaGion to c2.ll Inr:,pector Itur..ga and told him the circwnstances of her beinc; :::rcabbed. Inopocfor Jrn,1c1;.1ne Itu.nga :::educed this sta/GOiaent ilrco w1·i ting anC:. this is ,k.P .~-- .2. The person who inflict Gd. t!.::.i.s i11j;_;,.1""'lr -u could only hav.o ·c:.ic deceased following !l<:Yr provocative boh2.viour both in words a,ncl cl.coctso IIe said ·cl1at after leaving ·c~lo Police Force, ho started involved. · In the cov.rr.;e of tin10 tl10y w:magec:I. to accvJ.auiate 0J..:. c-· • "'I~ :.j 80 000•/- w.'.licJ.1 tho deceas 0C: w.:1r_; keeping. ' . ""r'"' On tbo d.2,;y- in qucu:;tion, ho Rskect ·cl1e deceased ·00 givo :1i;i1 some shs. 25,000/= for h.is bv.sinoso trip to Iforogoro. Eo·c o;_tly clid. she rofuso him off e11s i ve lai1:.31-12c; 2 o ]iL1 and. h0 atto,cked her with a knif o ~ The .learned trial judge conuio..ored. I,, the deceased I s '-v rh•in:cr ,;., c.~ecl,~rntion as providi;1g tho motive 2,li.c~ cil·cu~stancoo of the t!mt }1c was unable to plnco much rcli2.11cc on it bcc2,1..-,.sc in hiz view it wao woel~ 2.ncl unroaliablc on 2,ccom1t of -1;~10 contrc:.dictionc between tho version given by P.w.3 and ?.w.4. Tiic contr2,:iiction bel.. l'Vr ·"1.:, 1:11~t u.~ wh1.' - le· P.I-T.3 " r.:!+<"ltr.>d +U-~•V ~u~ ~ 1,~::,-l· ·::_'."le U• J, C oasca UG . ✓-> gave rcasons.~or • ., 0 0 ./3 / 3 ..,. c;_lagga living in o. :villago 11 • He t4orofore convicted hin of 1,mrdo:r ancl sentenced him to death. In th.is a:)poal, ·cl1c Tanzania:Logal Corporation.filed one g"I'Olli7.d o·f· 2-il:JGnl on behalf of the ap'.pcllant cor:i~,laining that the lcarnocl judge erz:.3d in rejecting ·tho clefcnco of provocation 1 and at tho hoc1.ri11g of tl1is 2,i:1peal Mr~ Lubulira 0~1pliaoizod that tho doceas.cd 1 s rcf\.wal tci hc.nd over nonoy to tl10 appellant as roql.'!.ostod 2.ncl. llor use of dir.ty words must !:!.c·we provoked him ·bo · ::.'1.:cll an c.;::to;.1t th2.t ho lost hiG Golf-control a:..1cl ac·~od in the heat cf 1.Bssiono I:Io ar6uod that 1 · -chis was ·how .an ord.inc:ry !,Ichage;a wo_i.llcl. have reacted in tho circG:1stc:i.ncos o For the dofe11co of provocati_on to utick~ it Btwt pasc the I objective test of whether a..11 ordine.ry aan b t!10 co::rr,m.nity to which tl~o accused bclongo would have boon provokocl in tho circu.1:1stc.11cos, r:mc.l tho b0r3t judges to ~.otomL.10 ~his question 2.re tho asoosr:rnr8, f or 1,~1ey 1 J. . arc II t!_10 o~d.1.nar;;r persons O.i.r., ·ll,'.O CI co;:1-::1..mi·Gy ' to wh ich t l10 2.ccUGod belongs",, If courts nc-U1or;c -~o t~1is sinple toot and c1s I 2.;.:1plifi.od and o..-rpli:d;.1od in various juc~0Do,1ts of this Court, t!~o need to /resort to judgo;no11:f.;s ·1~ssod m1c.l pronounc0d in 2, difforon-c .?ocialogical co:nJ.;ozt would never c',,riqc ~ We he..vo in oind tho 02.se 01·.·:;r,d ~ - by J_ll.il 1 ,., - +ri' v C.:1,1 J·,·,.dr,.·,,-, T.r_l,cn <, _ - < ~00·1.-,1· L clcr1.··1r• • 1.5 the DI~""' ~ L ""-c"v or C',~b ....'-" 0·100 v '.;!! ,C:, . !- · of :provocation in t!:lifJ caseo In con~iq.oring whet.her tho e..ct of the doccasod rofusin.::,· to hond over r:1oney. to tho 2.p:pcllant ru1191..u1to.cl to :l,)I'OV'oco.tion in law, the tric:i..l judge qi,w·cocl remo.rks fro□ an olcl c2:,;-Je ♦ ooo/ 4 4 w.'.::.ic.\1 to us _appoc.r not only unsuitod to tho fi:'.,cts of tho pror..,ont "its roc-~1"c:s ·Gl1c 0ct cf t~.:'..(; (lcco[·;socl rcfu·ci11;- -to h2.11d ever :·,wno;;,,- 9 t~10 ccu..:;_•-~::-~: ::::\V0 l'()pc-~-coc.lly ot2-tccl t.'.12.t i;.1 ·;;he co.so of c..ri l1.l1.)duc,-.,tocl. !~fricnn villngor, t~},} rGr:.30n.'.l.,bloncc;r.:: c:2 .'ii:: rc.0,ctic11 tc t}1c plYNOC,~,tion i"JU.st be Gc,;;.,0 .c::l not by 1-1:10.:l; tho judge ,•To1-1lcl ~::.:c.vo done 9 but by 11>..-.,t c,a ;;,v,:rr,gc tribal vill2,,gor 1:1ight llc:;vo cl:ono in the circt:r.1st2-11coc., i1 ~ ~ Unless theGe wordEl were only noc1nt to dcnigr2,cle tho Africm1 <'-S i { we,s fasb.io1ic.blc in tl10se dc..ys 5 ·1.vo .do not sec t.hc rolcv2,11co ·of singling out the unoclucc..ted Africa.;1 vil12.ger whose reactions S:.:ot,lcl be relntccl to tl10 o..vorage tribal villager 9 2.nd nd to wb.c-...·i; tl:e jv.ctge would ho.vc dcneo Tho ordin,:'..11co and its dofini tion of · 2)rcvoc2,tion whic!J. has been in force since 1930 makes no such c1~i::rtinctiono Evcxyboc1y, whether 2.,11 unoclucatod African villager o:;:, oth~ise □uct be judged. ncco.rdi:ng to what an ordina.ry mo..n of ~1is . . co,:r.nmi ty would hr.1,vc ro.'.lctcxl in tho cil·cur.1stri..11ccs c..nd not wllat tb.o j"t!d,gc would b.2.v0 clone., As wo statccl 02,1·1icr 9 this case is dso m1sui tod to Jelle fo,c·i;a of this c0.i:ie bec,:--,use the pro:::icnt 2,ppollG.l1t is ;.1ot 2..;1 ui10cluc::"s·c0c~ li.frica:1 vil12.-Jor .. , It could. not tl1ereforc be 2,p9l iecl to hin cvez1 if it were sociologically 0-cccpt,:.bl e. Section 202 oi tl10 Pono.l Code which clcfi;1es provoco..tion 1)rovides 2..G followsi- 11202 o '.i:1110 tom II provoc.:'..t ion 11 ;1102,;.rn and includes 9 e~copt ns horoin2-ftor stetted, e;,.1y wrongful act or ins1..u t of 0~1cl1 n ria tu.re Q,o' t~ be 1 ikely, iv!.1on clone to QJl ordimi,ry peroon 9 or in -t!10 prcoonce of an orcline..ry poroon to another l)Orr:on who is under hir:; iEl.i:iediato Cc.rSJ~ or to wJ.,.or:1 ho ot2.ncls in a . con:jueo,1 9 p2.ront;:i.l, fi1fo.. l or frc,tornal relation, 03: in tl10 role:tion of nc,::itcr, or servant, to deprive hin of tho power of sclf-co;.1trol e.nd to induce hiB to co::1Di t 2..11 ~'..:::.:2,ul·~ of the k~ncl wl1ich the person ch2Xgcct committed upo:1 tl10 per::;O11 by whom tl1c 2.ct or insult is done or of'fo1~ec1 anc_g · For t110 purpos0s of thio r3oction tl10 01:pror:::sioa "an ord.i:;.1[',ry pcrso1111 shall DOD-l1 an ordinary person of the crn;17,1VJ1i ty to w!::ic!: t!10 2-ccv.sod bclongn,,11 o 5 In .-~~,.o l)rooe:mt Q~1,sc- tl10 "'dirty worc1.o 11 ,,llcc;ocliy uttorocl by tl::.o cloce;:-,,Ded we.to not cons idorocl boc,?,uso tho appclk,nt did i1ct specify t~1cn 9 but ovon if' ~!.O !:tad clone so, they woulcl not in 01.u~ view h.:wo D.l:1ountecl to p1~ovoc2.tion / l~ftor I huc~ wo..shccl cmc: rot1.1.r11oc,_, into tl:o house _11 thnt is who:1 oho clisplayocl lrnr l:pstili tios, decG<?,sccl rcfuBecl cor.iplotoly to give no tho money. Boc2.uso · of this I 1f2.[; so.i.zcd wi t.h anger m1e1. I bocru-Jo very bitter because it is I who earned thc1,t money o J;n tllc'.:li state of anger and bi ttcrnoss I in.jurocl :.w wife with a l.mife~II. T1.:1e learned judge. was of the view tlw,t a:n ordinary reason2.,bl0 ccu.we.ted Cb.agga would not have boon provok,:x1 by tho clecoao eel I s action o:f rcf1..tsing· to lk1,nc.l over 2on0y to hin. IIc would l:2..ve to.ken other ' nec..auros to got the noncy. We are not certain whether the learned ' jt.ll:go was in c1 position to put hiasolf ii1to the ohocs of what he c2-llod "an orclin2,I'IJ reasone,blo od.ucctoc~ Chagga" Q Seconclly, there W[',,G ;,10 evidence that tho appellnnt 'is ·ec.~ucdod 2,part fro::i tl;.e fa.ct tl,z;~ lie was at one time a police:i1ru1.o T~.c lonrnod judge woulcl h2,vc· boon on finner e;round if he had gono by tho views of tho 2.ssossors who rejoctocl the appolla.nt 1 s story. They soc:r:wcl to prefer tho clying n,, c.lecl2.ro,tion as providing tho bnsio for tlio c:t;tack on. tl10 clocer,socl. · i .. 1oy ! refusal by tho doconsocl to b.ancl over r.1oney woulc:. not have provokotl hir.1 to r:1e,ke him co,:tait tho kincl.. of 2.sso:u).t ho cor.1::1ittocl on-~tho clocc2.scd.. In legal lo..ngu,.1,g0 9 the 0,soosoors were saying tlmt no 01xlin2,r-.r man of the appellant's cosr,1ui1it~;, woulcl bo provokocl by the 0-ctions of tho cloconsocl to tllc o::;:{ont thnt tho 2.i)pollant cl2,ins For our part wo do 1i.ot think tb.ero 1-rcro gcocl reasons for rosn.rcling tho dying clcclarntion in j£:~P~2 c1s weak and vnrec11i2,blo. It was rocordod by a police officer wl:o b:id no ro;:,,son to lie 2,.zninst .,, 6 tho appellant. Tho fact that P •.w.4 clicl ;_10t J.war tho docoascd givo .reasons for the att2.ck cannot be cxpl2,inod solely on thG basis tl:2.t t.i.10 reasons recorded bY. p;w .3 wore invented. Indood. t.b.e dying declaration appears very authentic as it contains a pai:n.ful lament b;y- a czying mother .... "who will look af'tor my children?" Those moving words could not have been invented by P.w.3. For these reas.ons we are firfilly of the view t.r...at the dying declaration provides the motive for the killing of the deceased and that the appellant invented the money story which as the ,, assessors stated, even if it were true, could not have amounted to provocation in law. The appellant's attack 9n the deceased was·cruel, . . intended and calculated to cause death. His conviction' for murder was JUSTICE OF APPEAL A • Hl\.MADII.Ai.\TI JUSTICE OF APPEAL L. N. MFALILA JUSTICE OF APPEAL. ·. , ·"' I_ tll•'v/"//1 l., ( J. H. MSOFFE) . ,.....,..,..--