19920424 TZHC Mwanza2

:rn THE BlGH COURT OF 'l1ANZ.Al'HA AT MWlu"'-TZA 'APPELLATE JG'RISDICTIOH (Mwooiz~ Registr;y) rrra:rr COURT CRIMIN/l.L flPPEll.L NO• 1·02 or 1991 ,1 ( Original Criminal Case No. 374 of 1989 of the Dis•lirio"i; Court of Musoma Distriot at Musoma Before: T,lf.J.,_ LUG!iZIYA Esqc, Distr;i.ct Magistrate) CH!iCHA MllRWA 0 O 0 li.PPELLll.NT ( Original Accused) Versus: THE UNI'l1ED REPUBLIC: . .. •.• • • 0 RESPONDENT (Original Prosecutor) J1JDGMEN'11 11,ffiS tlNCHE o JI Appellant, Chaeha Marwa,was charged ·with rape c/s 130 and 131 of' the Penal Code... '11he magistrate convicted him of at·iiempted rape and sentenced him fo seven years imprisonment 9 with ·bwel..Y§. strokes of the _·cane. Mr 0 r,'.fwa.111begele, the learned_ sta·te atton1.ey 9 m.1pports the convictioncW His only quarrel is with th1:i sentence- Ile -~hinks the sentence of EJ.C'l(.en years and twelve strokes that ·lihe appellant was given was no-t oril7 on ·i;he high side, iiut also illegal., . reading of the recoro.. Complainro1t~Perazia Mwando,Pvl1 3 was the wife of Hwandu Nyamko 9Pv12., :!'4' PW2 was ·a watc.!::rnan at -some place,.. On that d;Jy1 of 6/9/89, the complainant .went ·~o visit her husband, at his place of work• Indeed, just. before tho husband, P112 9 r0ported on duty 9 it was agreed among the two that they go ·i;o put 1;p a"li a house of _Wirungu Wambure · · PW3.. iJnd. so, _PW1 and PW2 w_ore g-l vcn a room which had no:roal door 9 and they entered in•iio· -~his room for a "rest", as they themselves put it, The husband then la.tor loft, '.'Go go to report on duty• 3 where complainarri; was sleepi::1g and. ~nd.eed 9 foolishJ..y, m<:mtioned his name afte~ -~:he ohild (-who was not oc<lL:d. ·i;o give evid011co) a,sked who it was that 1ms _sn0aldng ino Th2,t would lend creC..e,100 ·i;o the alleg_ation that ·the· appellan·~ was drunk. A oober mru1 could no·:; so foolishly disclose .his ide~tit-y in ouch circwnstances,- ,· Again, i•~ so1.111ds true that t~1e appellant had i\Ul sex vi-ith the oomplainaxi:t., The -trial magi strata is exi.gr:y a'.t the fac-~ that the PF3 ';, on PF3, ··was specifically asked ·to saY whether co1;:iplainaat had be_en ra,ped or not. '2lle doctor only tall::cd about the oorapla.inant boing inju:redo What is moro, however, is tha-t soon n:'ter t.1.,.0 asua1.ut or the ,. they found "tilc..e appeliant in tho room. But, the problem is, whcr(;h3r, really, evon assurn:i.ng tl,crc wao full :L.1tercov..rse, was the sGJ:10 done 1ri.th .,_· consent from ·the ';·roman? manifested NormaJ.l;:r, i~1 rape ca,se, ahs_cnce of conbo...n.,G is i iJ1 doctorf'.s reports; rrhero, ·for exa.'Tlple, one fi11cls sor.,e abrassion.s or contusions on ., the person of ·_1;b_e· complainant, one can assume tha:1; -~horo was a struggleo But, in "lihis case, ·~ho PF3 is silen·b 011 this aspect of the· case. Agaii.1, in r3,pe cases, the practice is ·to look for corroboration of the complm:1Q.il"G§ -to~timony. The loarnod otate at·00:cnej' suggests that such corrolJo.ra•tion comes frof!l PH3~ fil.ri.mga Wru11bu~a.- . But, PW:?, does not sa;r thaJG -~he complainant told !1ici ·tha;t -~Jw n:ypcllant ha~ raped he.• He said t:.1a;t r-J.he ·cold him tha·c she had beon lJ ec=J:k"1.· As 01,cll, r am of the view· that ev:i.tlci1.oo of PW3 does not corroborate -;;;:2:i; o:c the 9oe1plainant •. All in ill) after going through tho entire ovicloncc that was · and. adduced , ·i:;he judgment of the ·cricl. Dagistratc, H seuos to rne clear . ~ ~ • ~ • • .~ • u o/4. ___,' 4 .-'c;ha:t there we:co gapr:; i::1 ·;;'.w p:cosecution caso~ The nagistrate himself was vc1.·:f critj.02,]_ of almost tho yholo of tho prosecution case,. I -will give a few mcar.:plus. Castige:~ing·bho PF3 tendered, tho ·(;riaJ.,magistrljt:io-t& sayst "In a cl.1a,1,ge o1 ra;;ie, corroba.rat:i.on of the complainar.L·t t .S i:;tory is very iraport,111.t thn.t .. in its alJ130i1c0, _the oharge may noJG 1Je sustained.~ (seo Katende V R ( 1971) U.L.R 10 ad Casrg;hr;i. & another V.,n (1970) H.C.D 66) ·. . Mindful of this, the P,rosecution r,,. ,.· sought,· as i·i; is the practico, to proV'e their case by tendering a medical foi~i11, PFJ, The personnel at the ho_epi taJ. wl10 examine cl tho oor:1plain2n t, wi thciut prejudice ·00 }.lis qualificri:cion(s) .i ·ifaorc2_,s, -~:.10 oomplairit was about r2,Pe;1 ·;;he i?:':13 reports a,bout a bn.ckac.l.le and nmsclc pai1.o,. ;.3oanty ::,,s m;v norlical knowlec4_:,;0 r:1D;)r be, po:d.ent conplains of a h0aclac::..o, i·:; unprofoosion<ll. . :_ ' •,\ , ' and grea:i;ly :i.J..'Tesponsi bl e to nako an examino;-iiion of tho- paiiioat ! s stod.l.t In tho present case, if', i·i; ~rnre ne, and I hope, any prudent medical off~c·er, what was required., and what I would have done, was to ez:ai."Tline the conplainan-ii' s private pa:i.,ts and or areas surrounding the sane. In which caso 9 it mny have bcon possible to no·aco bru:ise □arks or abrasions,. If thene woro fo1..md, ·l;l:w;y- would not only help in es·~ablishing th::.-1; ·c.t10 cor. pla-l.11a1r1i 1 . ' d but vill corr.obor.·ate t:::.o fact ~-ras fravis--1:c-~ Th,.1-(; was th0 sca;~J.ung longuage of th0 trial nagistrate -:-:- vezy 5 the benefit of clotii.rb. I respectii\u.ly,. therefore, cliffcr fron t.:ie learned state attorney who thinks t!1at the conviction was well deserved. I think it was not• I therefore i:'J.low the appoal :Ln i"ts 01Yciro-by,. Talking about the sentence now will be s-uperfluous. I say 11o·thi11g ab9ut it. The appella11t shouJ.,l oo ::-oJ.oa:;ec1 f:ron jail furthwi th unless he is there for sor:10 o·chor nattert, .. ---,-----} I / o.I~;=b ( \ i \,'., Appellant: Abscm:~ i:: '· ' I ., /