amiri mohamed vs the republic 1994 tzca 52 10 march 1994

Iff TIU COUKU CJ 0? T.UE/XL1 AT 'LATGA (CQPuUii ILK— uJt J ♦..*« i ^id — ~J-s J>ui) GRliillijJj iTO. ^ OP 19^4 » hjtaici : ;j;.m i k i l j i i i d .............................................................■;tt.t ..,j 7p ,a :d 1' JJ iU,UBLIC. .................................. ... , llJolOirJIItlT (Appeal fron tAo co..lviction raid oontonco of fee TJigi Court of Tanzania at Ta:.v>0 (iCiloo - rBII/a;-b« Jurisdiction') clatod t-o 3rd da,;- of Docoribcr> 1592 in Crininal pods ions Caso ITo. A5 of . 15S'2 ■JUDOJIJl.T GI:1 t:,j court •**•8 Tho appollant AIiLRI iIO...uUIiI!I) uao c.adov.nod to doc,t-’j. by lira. ia io o ? TPJIj j3xto:idcd Jurisdiction, aftor being found guilty of nurdcring a Tronan} variously dorjeribed arj a iridov or divorcoQj ASHA IIEIL'JT; at K ilolc V illa g e ? Ilorogtro D istrict on 15th. Fobruai^-' 19>1« I-o ia n&vocatod for by Ilr. Kavuta> learned Counaclj vliila Ilr, JJilaro? learned Honicr fJtato Attorney arjoared fo r tlio roaporidont Piepublic aid urged uo to sustain tno finding tl'.at tl'-o appellant i-J guilty, T.io docoaool :rarj r;tab’.od to death cono f i f t y pncoo fro n tlxo houao o f Zr.4 VXCJ’ !D !HC7IA3L a ’d hio ui.Tc ?.!» 2 IIlEEAtlU IIKDilu ir.iof lik o r'J.3 D/jTIlL-’- KGlICL'.j said the appellant ~rcJ3 ono o f the pooplo vlio trout v i s i t i n g at t.’\at Ao’x e tAat ovcnin~« The appellant oimod c.0 nucLj so that Tjaa con.ion jprovcid* ♦.... /2 2 According to 1^7.4, r~.r.2 and Zf.3, the appollant uttciod. aono throats to tho docoaood -rho uars alco at tho houco vhoro T.I,2 irzuj aide* EiO c.ppollciit t!ircato::ocl to got ovon ::ith tho docoaaod booauoo o£ Dor.io undinci] ooad in c iv il treatment ho i~"d boon aubjoctod to by tho docoaaal previously. 1^**4 did not liko tho comiotion in Ilia houna so hu ackod a l l tho viraitora to loavo, nr,4 toctiiiod to lo o rlu g tho houua tritli tho docoaaou, uith tho appollant bohind than, Outaido tli#$0 tho appellant roaunod the quarrel irhich tho dccoaaod said aho did not like* tfhoroupon tho appollant coizod tho. doccasod by hor droso and hit .'.or with aor.iothinj tho appellant fiahed out fron his pocket. The doccaaed criod out that. olio, hcul boon otabbod xiith a knife Trhilo tho appollant ran airay* On bohalf of hie client Ilr. Kavu.ta argued four grounds* F irst ho aubr.iittod that 77.3's tootinony ought not to havo boon 'ooliovod and ro lic d on by tho t r ia l Court bocauae i t differed •fron 3di« D1, tho ntatoncnt tho -iritnoao nr„do to tho x'olioo aio day a fto r tho ovontj in particular about tho aoquonco of ovontcu Going by tho ate.tor.rant there iraa a tine irhon PIT.3 iront airoy fron tho docoancdj and leaa than five ninutos lato r in whon PIT,3 hoard tho docoaaodtG crioa. Loamod Counsel fc r tho appellant alao urged that the allogod throate by th.o appellant tiaido tho houao voro aheer lions Thoro irorc no auch throrvfca :r.do and that wars -.,-hy tho renderings by tho three iritncac troro d o variont. The appellant’a adv-cato *a othor grove:d of conplaint iraa that tho loair.od t r ia l nagiatrato orrod in finding that tho appollant u/jod tho buah-l;nifo (jli'.«I3 ) to k i ll tho deceased by making uao of tho evidence of tho appellant's dau^itor 1TI«5 P*JTUIiu *JHRI and that of nr.u D/3gt, iLlQLL* ............/3 Counae] 'o loot ground in thc.t it wafJ wrong on the part of the t r ia l Court to dirj'ooliovo tho roaaonablo and lik e ly vcraion by tho appellant. Covt’col also oubrsittod that tho t r ia l nagiotrato j ’.ado up her nind that the appellant wao a l i a r oo that cvon .0:1 oho canc to conrjidor tho appellant1a diDp_ppoarctncc a fto r tho .'idling aho r.iado conclusion without properly analyoing tho appellant1c atoi-y, Tiio appellant’a voraion Tzaa tli&t althou^i ho did go to the houao of Zr.4 and thcro found the deceased who lo f t with TT. 3 ahead of hin? tlioro tiac no troublo at a ll* Ho lo f t tho placo normally but did not go hono. Zo spent the :ujht at Ilanundu in Iiio unclo’ o Iiouoo and tho following day ho wont on to jgonbozi to look fo r a job. ’Jo -trial:, to pcvuoo Iioro and obrjorro tiro things* Ono that tho undo wc.u not callod ciid two that according to tho appollant hinaolf ho lied an unconplotcd naoairy assig.inont which Iio lo ft to bo conplotcd by other fundis. regarding tho panga naid to bo t.'io nurdor weapon* t’.o appellant aaid Iio did to ll hi a daughter to throw tho panga into a latrine or tho r iro r but thio iraa because i t Iiad hurt h:Lu. lir* Hilaro, loaiTiod .".tto may ' for tho Ropublic supported tho conviction. Iio concodod t’ .fit i“7*3*o statonent to tho Zolico d iffe re d fron what rj.ho latex1told tho Court but ho urgod uo to accopt Iior explanation tl at at tho io lico station nho hold back sonowliat as she iras r;carol and she Iiad be u roughed up. In?, Bilaro also submitted t ’lat lil.3’ a identification of ihe appellant at tho accrno wan worthy of b e lie f. I f , howovorj wo thought that that pioco o f ovidonce neodod corroboration such corroboration iras availablo fron tliroo aopocto, Those were th.o throats tho appellant uttorod to the docoaood at tho lioucoj tho appellant's disappoaranco fo r .... / 4 - 4 - □ otic a n d tlio d i u o o v o r y of the n u r d o r w oa p o n . L o a m o d S ta t e A t t or n ey ’ a l n o p o i n t e d out that th e o v i d o n c o of tho a p p e l l a n t * n d a u g h t e r wr.o diooa.rclccl a n d no t Lined, Tlio lon.iT.iod tr i al n a g i c t r a t o r o l i o d rathe;.' an tlio a p p e l l a n t f□ ovn e vi d e n c e rzid t’a.t of i!f, 6. IIr» Bilc.ro ;,1d o cubr.iittod tliat the roar.on tho a p p e l l a n t gavo f o r w a n t i n g t o .d i o p o o o of tlio grciga warj flir.rjy. L aatlyj on G r o u n d 4 l o a r n o d otr.to ..'.ttornoy a a i d it w a n only a nr.ttor of ntylo» Tlio t r u t h in t!\at tho l e a r n e d tr i a l sagLutrcvbo c o n s i d e r e d tlio o vi d o a o o of b o t h tlio I r o a o c u t i o n a n d tho Dofoiico b o fo r o a r r i v i n g at lior decision. '.>o arc obliged to both Couhool fo r their help. ~'o propoao to deal with the second "round fir a t . "ith rorjpoctj wo aro not at a l l inpronaod by tlio appellant! n advocato ’ rj rjubaiocion tl-at tlio disparity in tho thi-oe rcproductiono of tlio reported throata by tlio appellant to tho deceased are rjucli tliat the t r ia l Court ou^jht roaooaably to liave doubted tlio veracity of LT.2, Hr.3 and rif.4* /JJL tlio tliroo v o r o i a i o y i e l d tho nan o b a s i c ne n oa g e : T h a t tlio d o o o a a o d liad d o n e fionothing b a d t o tlio a p p e l l a n t f o r w h i c h tlio d o c o a s c d w o u l d liavo to p c t h a t da;-. The tliroo irit.ioosoo olxould n o t liavo b o o n o::poctcd to q u o t o tlio a p p e l l a n t v e r b a t i m n oc o aa a r i l y . I n f a c t * i n tho c i r c u n o t a n c o c f i f oc.ch w i t n o c o 1-ad u a e d tlio nano p r e c i s e i d e n t i c a l w o r d s o:-.o ni ~it s t a r t wond er i ng . L ike tlio trial C ou r t; ire a r c s a t i s f i e d tha t the a p p e l l a n t d i d u t t e r the t h r e a t s to tlio a p p e l l a n t . ~.~o n i ^ h t J u n p lioxo a n d a d d t.’iat tliio wa.o i n d c o d a c i r c u n o t a n c o to bo t a h o n i.ito a c c o u n t in o o n o i d o r i a g tlio g u i l t oi' o t h e r w i s e of tlio a p p el l an t . R e g a r d i n g t h e b u s h lenifo w h i c h iran G r o u n d 3j w o w i s h to n a y that one d i d n o t h a v e to r o l y on tlio o v id o n c o of tlio girl m . 5 t o f i n d t h a t it f e a t u r e d in tlio caoo. Further, it ic t rue that - 5 - i i . would1indoor! hauro boon inpropor to noko uao of i t booauao tho OTiclonco of a hoatilo ^ritnoca ]-as to ho thrown out in toto, In tlio instant oaco, howovor; thoro was tl'.o ovidonco of tho appellant Iiin c o lf tluat ho did inatruct ITr.5 to throw away tho iroapon, into a la trin o o-? into a. rivo r. looplo do not usually throw away woaponc which liappon to hurt thor.i, as that would bo quito unnatural. I f you foe:- that a woapon would hurt you again why not foor fo r your daujdrjor aloe* and why :iot think of nonboro of tho public who re;' !x.vo occasion to bo in tho rivor? ~-~oaro oatiofiod that tho appellant had sonothing to foar abouttho pang?. and tliat wao why ho gavo inatruotiono for it s disposal, '.To too think i t would havo boon bottop worlcnannhip to sond tho woapon to tho Govomnont Chcniat, but in tho particular circiristancos of this caoo wo do not think tho urihapjjr oniaaion was fa ta l. Regarding Ground 4 wo agrco with what lir. Bilaro aaid. Sroxy nagiatrato or judge has got his or ’-.or own atylo of conpoaiiig a jud.30r.10nt, 3ono judgononta aro uoro lo g ic a lly ’.rritton, oono arc noro neatly thoughtful, rjono aro noro conpondiouo, cad ao on. lihat v i t a l l y nattora ia that tho oaconcoc should bo thoro, and thoao includo c r it ic a l analysis of both tho i'rorjocution and tho ^ofonco, .To aro vuiablo to say that tho oaoo.rfcial ingredienta aro lacking in tho oudgor.xsnt wo aro co:isidorin> Ho now wish to turn bach to tho ifjrjuo of tho ro li,a b ility or othorwico of tho witness IUi»X3Ik» KQLIH1. Ono nooda to bo r o a lio tio . I7c cannot f a i l to (yjroc with !j?. Uilaro that w’.'.at wo aro aatia fiod did happen at tho house of 7:7,2 and ZI .4 io a cirounatanco lo g itiu a to ly to bo tahon into account. Tfo aro of oourao referrin g to tho throata which, as wo I'j&ra indicatocl, wo aro aa tio fio d the appellant '.id utter. J i f in ainutoa thoroaftor /6 jjho docoasod 1 Ion o fob bod and doad. Tho t r i a l tic^Lotajtvto oad both. lior r«nno J30TO c p o c ific a lly naid th oj boliovod Hr*3* aro rocpootfull-/ o f tho vio;r that what «ho oaid wao truo cad w , aooap^ hor onplana':'.on tha.t rj.’-.o hold back cono in f orr.ia.tion a t tho io lic o Station bo;aaoo nho waa ooarod and had boon rou^iod up« tCtoir i a °ur viow oxpla 1'in t ’ .o d is p a rity pointed out. Tho: o traa aloo tho bohaviour o f t.'.o appollnat noon a fto r tho ovon t. Ho diaappoarod fro n his abodo and hia story tlia t ho wont o f f to look f o r a job; whilo ho had another .job imoonplotculj and without cr^iilg ~ood.byo to ’ ..in fai.:ily5 convincoo uo that bo wont in to hidin g bocauao ho xtt/j rocponaiblo fo r the dastardly dopCU I f ho inaocontly apont t.'.o n i& .t at tho houno o f his undo and ian ocon tly a&ain tra v o llc d with hin one would liavo oxpootod Jiin to oe.11 that undo or a t lo a s t explain uhy ho did not do bo, Tho t o t a l i t y o f t.'.o ovidonco oatie:?iod ud, beyond roaaonablo doubt, as i t did t.'.o loam od t r i a l rr^ i^ tra to , that tho appellant i t wac that nurdorod tho docoarjod. T. -.o appellant knon/c wly ho did no, Tho notivo in not d ia com ib lo on the rooord but thon^ o f oourao, notivo dcoo not have t ' bo o tablisP.od to bria^ tho cl-ar^o hono. Tic di;-:.ii~s tho appeal as wo arc s a tis fie d tha,t tho t r i a l Court docinion crvinot ju s tly bo accailod, Tib irish to associate ouns D?.ves nit.’'. what lira. K ilao s a id about tho I'c lic o habit o f c o n fin in j a ouopoct’ rj doar onoo ao an to lr.ro tho auapoct fron h idin Tho praotico na,y produoo tho doairod roaulta but i t in co rta in ly crudo5 noea* uajuat, c a llo u a j and doplorablo. I t ia harhly calcu lator to ondonr tho P o lic o Forco to t.’ .o public, h 7 ~ H'iTIID r.'o SlwJCil ■i’iia lOt'i o f 1?94» iL _ ^ E JUOTIG^ OF J I X T X C H 0? j.mJ $Jj* lL.i^^.j-0-^.^iiX JuTJTICD 07 I ccrtif^- •blr.cvb -fc’:.i£j ia n true 0 0 7 / 03? tho origi-.ial, ULUTY ... if f r/ 'J,I ) EJGI3TIL'Jl