19920309 TZCA Tanga

I IH rrr.am COURT OF APPEAL OF TJG-TU.NU. AT. T.iUWA. CP. TI,ID1"..L .LPP::Ji:.1 ?JOJ J.73 OF 1990. W.SITiJG~ ICTSru:::A • • • • l ;J e • 0 4 • ~ • • • 1:.PE:1 ,IJIJ::rT: 'lmE REPu13LIC • • • • • • • • \ • • • • • • • R,~POlTDB:rT (Appeal fron the Conviction of The Hi@ Co~ ·of Tanzania at: Tu.rigs.) · l. J (R.E.D. Sisya.1 s.) dat:ed the 10th day of Nwelilber, 1990 _jn C}'l.g:i.naJ. Sassio1w. j'&se No,. 7 ~f 1,287 .nJDG.t,'.DJN"l' OF ·T.4@ COUR'W The appellant 1 l~o:.1alea. Kishirra, ua::J ·convicted of t:~e r.nl.l.'der of t~e deceased, Iilldcr.1?, s/o l'.U~i.U:100, c.1 4/4/1.985 n:t IG.kol~re V""illag,3 Mt The IIi0,1 Court of Ta,1zanic. at T.-:.J~_;:1 (the late Bi::i;ya, J.) believefl_ (P~U;3}, as t:o what t.ook ~laoe. Tb.cir tcstiz.:io:zy- rra.3 to t:.:.e effect. -tpa.t: they had net tho ai)pella.nt wlio asked P.lr.3 to cl::.ub. up n. coconut tr.ea. and out- doi:m sot10 "ra.;,.da:f'U"• At first ·p, :-r.3 ro:fw:led hecause ·he had been ua.:t'l1Gd ae,ainst: doi."lg that by his fa.toor. :But on the insist.0210·0 ·of the app:,llant P.w.3 EP,ve in a.nd -did 1-dlat the a!)1)0lla:-:~t 1:-antcd. .ila the-<J were t.:reatil1s thcomvos with the "nada.fui' tho doccD,Scd joined t:ion and upon his 1"0quest he 1-ra.s given a piece of neat· of "dafu" by tho a!)pOllant. Then tno a.11.;?ollru.:t asl:od P.1r.3 to rs-o up a coconut tree for t~c second ti:oc. P.:i.3 t.otally rof'usod.. Tllo , t .. 2 - aP.Ee,llant. turned t:o the dooeaaed. with tJl.e sa.i-:ie dot1a.1:d. 'roo deceased ~a.led SotlO boils, on his clws:tt.o sup]?Or.t: his ¢lain of inability to clinb up a oooo.nut tree, Lt that junctttre the a::_:>?Ol1a.nt: slashed tho doceaaed with the_ p;inga ho had. I':·i;,2 mdo a movo to :L."'lterv.eno but he was scared ai·tey by en .::i.ttac~ ~i::,-::i,inst hin. Tl:.c=eupon both The appellant tl:cn surrond.cro.c. :1ir.JSolf ito his villae,-o chc.1-i:t!!la?l . . wb.om ho found praoring at· a mosqus and -who in t'U.I'l1 ha..11d.ed over the a.:?PGllant: to D/Sgt,: Joh11riton Kapola (Rl,5) to uhow the appellant I:lada a. cautiqned atatooont ( ~ P.2). Hf.5 issuod out a P,F.3 (Exh. P.5) and Dr. l~da (P,U.l) wrote on i~s "AlrJ.:r.i yaka il1aolekea si nzttci. Ana.hita.ji uangalizi tra. mganlJI.•" Consequent to that, and a.t the :roquost of the defenoo before the High Cou:rt, the provisions of Seotion 220(1) of. the Crioinal Procedure Act.: ;.. were .applied and the appcllai."'lt was referred t:o the Isa.ng:i. Psychiatric Institution uharo llt'. Paul Micha.el (P.l'T.6) ~ve his :roport; (Eldi. P.6) tbat. the appellant was q:tl.te sane. at tho tine of tho com~s3ion of the offence. i~d.r.ti.ttedly, b.ctom the learned -t:;:·i[',l judco P.U.3 de110sed that: 11 ! C'.'~ontua.lly decided to clir:1b it. '".Jcr;rxse I bcc2..r.10 afraicl of the a.qousea.. Resud.dcnly ch.:u:12,'0d liis co::iposurc and he lool..ed v.o:cy e:x:citod. 11 Acaiu P.U.3 on oross":"0~r..ination said "I sensed danger froa _the accused's ap:poa.ranoe and tho ~ he 1cld his 1 Wt6'8-'•" Finally to t:10 Court: P. w.3 mplied "'.l!ho aocuried did not apr,ea.r normal at all when he ordered me to a.limb the coconut treo ••• The accused was p:w:ting as someone who had rLU'l long distance, I sensed danger rutd therefore I had to clinb. tl:e coconut tree"• That notuithata:ndinc, and on the t.otality of the. entire evidence before hiL1, tho lear.aed. ju~--u came. t ·• 3 t:o t!:l.e finding that the appellant wa::: of sound r.ri.nd at the timo ho killed the dsoeased. l,tiz. ·Ka.vu.ta, lca:rxied advoca to, r-.gr.-0ared heforo us on the behalr. of the appeilant 1d th th:ree grounds of appeal. As his first; ground he aulnnitted that. the loamed judge orrad in i@'}oring. the oontonts of P.1'.3 (llli;h. P.4). However., upon p.rzobrl.ngs from the bench the learned a.dvooat~ abandoned this ground and, in cur. opiru.o.n, p:t!Ol)etly ao. It lra.s ~ Y beoa.us~ of Eli:hilili.tt P.4 that. ~he c.:wella.nt lms t~n to Isa.1191 Institution. SD what was of crucial importance ua.s the ;ooport f.ron that- Insti tutiort and _not. the prelil;ri.rul.r-,r one. '1110 soco11d. ground of appeal a.ssailed the m_portt fror;i Ism1€}1. ' Mr.,- Ka,vu.ta faulted tho lea.med judge in boing .s-;rea;tly influenced. ~ that. ropor:tt in disxog3,rd of other pieces of ovid.C:.mce which su.p:po~d the appellant's q.efenoc of i.nsn.nit;;r,, To s\1bstantiat0 t~,t- Mr. Ka:'tu.tJl subnit:ted that t:.ie best tir.1a to jwJ.e,'C t~-o sanity of tho apwllant ~ at the tme of tb.0 oomission o:I:.' t:::..0 offence a.ud. the tine ir:r.ieclia.t~ befoI'd nnd after it~ Tac learned ad.vocate ~id. that: tbei-e t-ras the . evidanca of P. if.3 that the a.ppella.nt 1-m.s fierce and frightening. Then M:!?t Ke.vutat while co11ood.i11g that the er..cuse demonstra-tod by the decea.sod for his fail\:Q:'e to climb up a coconu:;· t:t'ee rras rlVidly obvious, yet, and this was the ol"lt!C: of Mr. Kavuta•s contention, the reaction of the appellan~ wa.s ~ ir.rational • and could only ha.ve been explained by a state of :t11sa.11ity~ lastly, M:r. Kavuta. submitted that the lea.l'l1ed ju.d.e,-o erred in \ not; find.inc: that the a~)pellant lm.s provoked while there w-as· "abundant; prosecution ovid.ei1ce 11 t.:o that effect. Hr. Kavu.ta ar[.;ued tt.a t- the oauti:med statencnt (R.d.l. P.2) ul1ic:1 ua:J produced by P.:r.5 contained ( ... 4 _the clain tiy the appellant tlla t he ira.s inoulted btJ the d0,~oasod when he tms called 11 riehafu" Md "nsen~·:o \ .... "• Tho learned ad7oca 1 c pleaded , ' with us to t£.ke juclioial not ice of th0 :::'r..ct tl'-<l t to ...., p:;ri:::o.n fror.1 the hi.nte:cland an allegation of being "nse:ngo" .is a oexiotJS natter wile t:.o a. coastal :i;erson it; is a.n. ord.ina:cy taJ.k& Ch, behalf. of the. reapondent/Repulilic was :r:.:i~: }~&'Ohe., learned State Atto:mey. On the issue of insanity he s1:.br.rl. tted thait 011e of the limos of that dof'cnce :r~qui:res that' the appellant· did not know the na.ture of his. act and that ·it was ..~ong. In the iJ:1nt:-~mc case, Mr. ?,iagoho submit:ted, the appollant.. knew the nature of his act· as· he had deccribed it. to Rl._5, the 1-rea).)011 ur;ed1 the nur:bcr of outs and what; .pirt of tho boclJr was attn.okedo Then us to tho w-:c011c;f"..u.ness . surronde:red himself t:o the author-i ty iL1ncd.5.atoJ.y after- t3le incident;. On the iosuo of provocation Mr. lhJQhe _drew o:u- nt"'.;o:1tion to the f.act that_ the tx10 oye-1-riti1esses; P.'Ii.2 and .3, were not·. cros~~ examined on that. The loo.rned Sta.iie ... Atto:c1oy co11te:1ded t.b.:!.t tb.nit •or:liaaion was }?:t'Ggna.:nt. with signifioa.nce. Mr. Mn.gohe submitted that; the only inference to be drawn f'rori it was that t~,.o insults were f'a11ci:i:'Ll.l fiB'f,Xlnts of tho appellant, On our lXl,rl we fail to see h0tr tte ca.n fault, the loaxnod j ~ on ..1., ,de 1s • suo of 111sa.n . 1'ty. First, thero was no histocy of ~wanit;v a.cco:rd.L'1(5, to tho elder brother of the appella.11t, one s::or.la:Ci Kishiwa. houso (RT 4), in 'l:hooo L th0 o.ppellru1t -;,ran stcying, Adnittodly a.t tho: tine o:f the c.ct P.W.3 stated that the C:?I>Qllant was out. of the ord.inc1.:cy. But· tl;.at is fn.r fror.1 nn.yin0 t1la.t tho appellant w~s le@,].ly insane. Moroov.c:r, P,W.3 at -t:J.D..t· tine WM a youth in. Std.. 5• .. I< • 5 Cb tho other }k..,,nd, t!.:-.e other. e;r8--'W'itne.as, P.W .2, who was muoh older and who, a:i;nrt· fron hch13 the first cousin of the a.ppellv.nt:, vras sharing with hin t~1c san0 bed roon, cu.·:~. :1ot oJ.lo.ge: appearance blf the a.Pi)Ollant:., , such aBnol."t'lal C;tzy' and ir:imed.iatel;;r bo:?o:co a~:~~- D-ft.cro 3ut lookin.:; e,t wlJ..:,,t the a.P.:_Jellant did., as D.lro2-d~7 deto.iled nbovc, we c..."'..n.11.ot. b.c D,t. 011e ;Tith Mr. Kavu:ta. 1.J.l we oa.n sey is that; t~-c appellant was pltv-:-c,otinc. IIo sinulated insanity. Ind.cod Ervc:1 o.t the tine of trl31 he tried thc1.t ~ .Daspite his cav.tionod. statement and the Isanga :ropor.t1 ho insiiJ?Ucted his defence couns.ol t:o acy that as he did not, reme1:iher arwthine then h0 cotlld. not agree on a.n.y fo.ots. as undisputed under section 192 of Crioinal Procci.:.l.I'O Act. ' P.'o., therefore, ~:ojoot. this ground of insanity. ~Tb cone ne:;- t:.:: ·_Jl'ovocr~ilion. . It~ .i: t.:~ue, that tho 0c1.u.tioned s-tatemen~ case of the ap:pc,lJ.i::.nt c-rm1 v.. bit, :::-"5 rnrely recorclod what ho was. t~olc' c:y tho 2-pp r.c:.1t. Fort~:.toly t·_c 2.ppolla11t roccpitulatod in Cou.rt.: the alle.gr;tion of i:1Sults. 1J'o. then have two V'ersions of what p:rocipitatod tll.0 attack. The appellant alleged pr.ovocn.tion while P.Ws 2 a.nd 3 cont.end.eel that it was un}?l'ovoked. As t.o this controw~ we subscribe t:.o the bewlde~nt of Mr. Jhgoho: 1my weren 1t; P.U.2 and 3 gilled on tb..:.t. It. could not have b.oen an o-rorsight b.eoo.use the defence of provocation., if it was, £:ea.tu.red prorri.nently in the. mind of tho defence. Uo agree ~Tith 1~ ;i:-i~e that the cross ~w.na,tim,. '.\iaS cn.l.c$ted. with p:eoisi® t.o a.void an ell!Para.ssing, confrontation ~oh noul?, not--hc.ve bcoefited the .defa'loe. ·s+>, too,' we rej$.Ot this CfG>und of ap:peo.l., ' A.S._L. RJJ,!AllIANI JW'l'ICE OF APPEAL c N.s, :t,lNZA.V;:'Ji JmTIOE. OF i,P.E'.EutL I D. P. MAPIGANO 11&. ,· JJ)S-T_IqE OF APl'EA.L I ' i 'f I. cerflj,ty- ·fil1e:t; this, is a true copy of the _ol;'igi.1al. t