eva do salingo and 2 others vs the republic 1995 tzca 60 23 august 1995

IN THE C O U R T OF A PP E A L OF T AN Z A N I A A T MBEYA (C O R A M ; RAMADHANI, J.A. , MFALILA, J . A . , A n d L U BU VA » J . A . ) C R I M I N A L A P P E A L NO. 32 OF 1995 BE T W E E N 1. E V A d/o SALINGO 2. MT. 6 2 4 2 1 PTE P E T E R MAGO TI . APPELLANTS 3. MT. 62 21 8 P A S C A L s/o MGAWE A ND THE REPUBLIC. . . . . . . . . . . . RESPONDENT (Appeal f r o m the C o n v i c t i o n and S ent en ce of the High C o u r t of Ta nz ani a at Iringa) (Mchome, J.) da t e d the 10th day of September, 1993 in Criminal Se s s ions C a s e N o . 1 7 3 of 1991 J U D G E M E N T OF THE C O U R T LUBUVA, J.A.: The second appellant, MT. 62 4 2 1 PTE P E T E R M AGO T I and the th ir d appellant, MT. 62 2 1 8 PTE P A S C H A L s/o MGAW E ware c h a r g e d in the f i r s t c o u n t w i t h the m u r d e r of the deceased, SAID s/o MLONG ANI LE . In the second count, the f i r s t appellant, EV A d./o SA LINGO w a s c h a r g e d as an a c c e s s o r y after the fact. Bot h we re c o n v i c t e d as charged. The f i r s t and third appellants were s entenced b y the High C o u r t si tting at Iri ng a (Mchome, J.) to death. The f i r s t a p p e l l a n t was s e n t en ced to five y e a r s I i m p ri so nm en t. I n i t i a l l y ea ch of the above named a p p e l l a n t s had lodged an appe al ag a i n s t the c o n v i c t i o n and sentence. However, we were notified at the h e a r i n g of the appeal that the third a p p e l l a n t ..../2 2 died in pr is o n on 1.4.1994. So, the appeal is p r o c e e d e d wi th o n l y in so f a r as the first and second a p p e l l a n t s are c o n c e r n e d . In this appeal, we shall ref er to the third appellant, the deceased, as the third accused. The tragic deat h of the d ec e a s e d took pl a c e at M a k a m b a k o on 1 5 . 2 . 1990c The f i r s t appellant, E va d/o S ali ng o o wn e d a po m b e shop w he r e RUTI d/o F I L A N G A L I (PW.3) was e m p l o y e d in se ll in g pombe. I t wou ld appear that the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t had love r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h b o t h the d e c e a s e d and the seco nd appellant. It was the p r o s e c u t i o n c a s e t hat on 15 . 2 . 1 9 9 0 at a b o u t 8 p.m. the second a p p e l l a n t a c c o m p a n i e d b y the 3rd a c cu sed came to the pombe shop for a drink. P W„ 3 w a s then on d u t y at the p om b e shop. A t about 10.00 p.m., the d e c e a s e d al so ca me to the p om b a shop w h ? r e he sat at the c o u n t e r w i t h the f i r s t appellant. As it w as c l o s i n g time f o r the bar, the f i r s t and second appellants t o g e t h e r w i t h the d e c e a s e d g o t o ut of the p o m b e shop t ow ar ds the ho use of the f i r s t a ppellant. W h e n P W . 3 w as tak in g the pressure lamp f r o m the pombe shop to the h o u s e of the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t abou t 30 p a c e s f r o m the p o m b e shop, she saw the second a p p e l l a n t and the 3rd accused in hot e x c h a n g e of w o r d s o v e r the first appellant. Then the second a p p e l l a n t and the 3rd a c cus ed hel d the d e c e a s e d b y the c o l l a r of his sh irt o u t s i d e the pombe shop,, F r o m the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t ' s hou se door, P W . 3 saw the seco nd a p p e l l a n t and the 3rd accused still b e a t i n g the d e c e a s e d with th ei « Jyoots. Then they d r a g g e d the d e c e a s e d to a p l a c e she *I (PW.3* did n o t know. ________ /3 3 For the r es t of that night, P W.3 did n o t see the 2nd appellant, the 3rd acc used and the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t un t i l the next morning at 5.00 a.m. when the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t r e t u r n e d to her hous e and s h o r t l y left for Njombe. It was in the m o r n i n g f o l l o w i n g the n i g h t of the i n c i d e n t wh en the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t had l ef t f o r N j o mb e th at P W. 3 l e ar nt of the d e c e a s e d ' s death. She w e n t to see the dead b o d y lying b y the road side n e a r the C C M Office. PW.3 identified the dead b o d y as that of the deceased. Following the d e a t h of the deceased, a n u m b e r of s u s p ec te d p e o p l e w er e ar re st ed i n c l u d i n g RUTI d/o F I L A N G A L I (PW.3), SA UD A N Y E L E N G E (PW.4), ESTER SANGA (PW.S) and the f i r s t appellant. While in p o li ce lock-up, the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t th r e at en ed PW.3 not to d is close to a n y b o d y ab o u t the f i g h t t h a t took p la c e at the pombe shop w h e r e the d e c e a s e d was beaten. If she (PW.3) revealed, the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t threatened, P W . 3 w o u l d be b e w i t c h e d b y the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t ' s mother. PW.4 and PW. 5 w h o also h ea r d this thre at n o t i f i e d the p o l i c e (PW.6). I n v e s t i g a t i o n s w e r e c a r r i e d o ut and as a result, on 6.3.1990, the second a p p e l l a n t and the 3rd accused w e r e ar re s t e d and charged t o g e t h e r wi th the f i r s t appellant. In he r d e f e n c e at the trial, the f i r s t a p p e l l a n t E v a d/o S a l i n g o v i r t u a l l y den i e d e ve rything. She did n ot k n o w the second a p p e l l a n t and the 3rd accused. On the f a t e f u l night, she did not se° the second a p p e l l a n t or the d e c e a s e d at the pombe shop. She d i d not w i t n e s s any f i g h t taki ng p l a c e at h er p om b e shop that night. Thoug h she k n e w the d e c e a s e d b u t she did i n o t have love r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h him. She f u r t h e r stated that . . e o/4 ► 4 af t e r she had r e t u r n e d the lamps f r o m the po mb e shop she went to bed. The f o l l o w i n g morning, she left f o r N j o o b e to atte nd to a c i v i l case. She d e n ie d th r e a t e n i n g PW»3» The second a p p e l l a n t raised the d e f e n c e of an alibi. He c l a i m e d that he did not v i s i t the pom be shop b ut r e m a i n e d at the b a r r a c k s on the m ate r i a l night. He also m a i n t a i n e d that he w a s not i d e n t i f i e d at the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a r a d e in w h i c h he took part. This, he insisted, showed that he w a s not in any w a y i n v o l v e d in the k i l l i n g of the deceased. The l e a r n e d trial judge after a c a r e f u l an al y s i s of the e v i d e n c e ca me to the c o n c l u s i o n that PW.3, P W . 4 and P W. 5 were h o n e s t and t ru th f u l wit ne sse s. The judge f u r t h e r he ld that both the a p p e l l a n t s had told the c o u r t a pa ck of lies* Consequently, the second a p p e l l a n t was fo und g u i l t y of m u r d e r and w a s s e n t en ce d to death. The f i r s t a p p e l l a n t was c o n v i c t e d as an a c c e s s o r y after the f a c t for w hi c h she wa s sentenced to five ye ars i m p ri so nm ent , Mr. Ndiba le ma , l ea rned C o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t e d the a p p e l l a n t s in this appeals He r ai s e d two points. Namely, that the l ea rn ed trial judge er red in c o n v i c t i n g the secon d a p p e l l a n t of m u r d e r because there w as a fight? And that as r e g a r d s the f i r s t appellant, the se nt e n c e of five y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t w as exce ss ive . F r o m the outset, we w i s h to make it c l e a r that it is o ur v i e w r 4 the m a i n issue in this appeal is the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the appellants. A r g u i n g the app eal o n b e h a l f of the second a p pe ll a| £| Me . Ndibalema's br5ef s u b m i s s i o n w a s that as ________ /5 St e p h a n Ki hanga, (PW.l) the i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r m e n t i o n e d in his e v i d e n c e of a f i g h t and quarrel ta ki n g pla ce at M s a f i r i pombe shop, it w as p os s i b l e that as a r e s u l t of such a q u a r r e l and fight, the a p p e l l a n t w as f o r c e d to r e t a l i a t e a ga ins t the dec eased. In th at case, Mr. N d i b a l e m a c ha rged, the second a p p e l l a n t should have b e e n c o n v i c t e d of m a n s l a u g h t e r and not murder. In c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the secon d appellant, it is r e l e v a n t to m e n t i o n at this j un ct u r e th at at the h e a r i n g of this appeal, in a r a t h e r un u s u a l and d ra m a t i c manner, the second a p p e ll an t who w a s p r e s e n t in C o u r t s o u g h t to c o n d u c t his appe al o n his own. This w a s af t e r Mr. Nd ibalema, le ar ne d C o u n s e l had f i n i s h e d his s u b m i s s i o n for b o t h the appellants. W e a l l ow ed h i m to a d dr es s the Court. The e s s e n c e of his a dd ress to us w a s t h a t he w a s n o t i n v o l v e d in the m u r d e r of the de ceased. This, he said, was so b e c a u s e he w a s not i d e n t i f i e d at the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a r a d e h el d at the b a r r a c k s in w h i c h he took part. He d i s c r e d i t e d P W . 3 as an u n r e l i a b l e wi tn es s^ He ha nd e d o v e r to the C o u r t c o p i e s of the p o l i c e s t at em en ts b y some of the w i t n e s s e s fo r the p r o s e c u t i o n to show h o w i n c o n s i s t e n t they had b e e n in i d e n t i f y i n g h im (2nd appellant)* O n the issue of i d e n t i f ic at io n, the c r u c i a l e v i d e n c e is t h a t of R UTI F I L A N G A L I (PW.3). From the record, it is e v i d e n t th at on the f a t e f u l night, she w a s on d u t y at M sa fi ri Pombe shop f r o m 8.00 p.m. to 10 .0 0 p.m; the c l o s i n g hour. She wa s the e m p l o y e e of the f i r s t appellant. PW.3, in h er e vid e n c e f i r m l y state d to have seen the sec ond a p p e l l a n t and the 3rd ac c u s e d at the p o m b e shop at the m a t e r i a l time. That, her 6 emp loyer, the f i r s t appellant, was also p r e s e n t there seated at the c o u n t e r with the deceased. It is also in h er e v i d e n c e that b o t h the app e l l a n t s and the de ce ase d w e r e n o t new to her. She had seen th em on a n u m ber of o c c a s i o n s b e f o r e at the pom be shop in c o m p a n y w i t h the f i r s t appellant. There is therefore, no r e a s o n w h y she should have m i s t a k e n the i d e n t i t y of these peop le that day. W i t h the aid of a p r e s s u r e lamp, '(Karabai)' which s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o v i d e d li gh t at the po m b e shop, she wa s able to see the a p p e l l a n t s and the d e c e a s e d i n s i d e the pombe shop. Outside the pom be shop, she agai n saw the second appellant and the 3rd ac c u s e d b e a t i n g the deceased. The f i r s t a p p e l l a n t w a s also present. F r o m the t h re sh hol d of the d o o r of the f i r s t appellant, PW.3 saw the second a p p e l l a n t in the c o m p a n y of the 3rd a c c us ed still b e a t i n g and k i c k i n g the d e c e a s e d who had f a l l e n down a few paces away f r o m the pombe shop. F r o m there, PW.3 also saw the d e c e a s e d b e i n g d r a g g e d b y the ro ad side to a pla ce she did n o t know. The f o l l o w i n g morning, the dead b o d y of the d e c e a s e d was f ou n d lying b y the road side naked. The l e a r n e d trial judg e was c o n v i n c e d that P W . 3 i d e n t i f i e d the second a p p e l l a n t su ff ic ie ntl y. A d d r e s s i n g hi m s e l f on this issue he stated: "The iss ue is w h e t h e r P W . 3 i d e n t i f i e d those w h o wer e fi ghting. She says she k n e w b o t h 2nd and 3rd a cc us ed persons and the d e c e a s e d w e l l before. T he y w e r e the 1st a c c u s ed 's lovers. T he y c a m e into the po mb e e a r l y and drunk. At closing time their quarr el o v e r 1st a c cus ed s t ar te d inside. I am the re fo re c o n v i n c e d that P W * 3 i d e n t i f i e d those w ho b e a t up the d ec e a s e d c le arly. I f i n d P W.3 to be an h o n e s t and truthf ul g i r l . . . . . " And PW.3 in h e r e v i d e n c e inter alia had stated: " . . . . . . 4 .. I saw 2nd and 3rd a c cu se d b e a t i n g the d ec ea s e d w it h the ir boots. We w e n t to E v a ' s hous e and stood at the door. We w a t c h e d their b e a t i n g the d ec eased. They said we w o u l d n e v e r leave you this woman. We feared to come close. We w a t c h e d th ro ug h the door. They c o n t i n u e d b e a t i n g him. W e wer e ab ou t 30 p a c e s f r o m the pomb e shop at Ev a ' s house. _Th<5 y_drag_ged, the d e c e a s e d to I (Sic) dfi not k n o w wh er e a n d Eva returned at 5.00 a.m." O n the b a s i s of this evidence, the l e a r n e d trial judge c a m e to the c o n c l u s i o n th at the second a p p e l l a n t and the 3rd accus ed we re the o ne s who b e a t the d e c e a s e d and s t r a n g l e d hi m to death. This is s u p p or ted b y the p o s t m o r t e m examination report Exhibit P.IV which indicates the c a u s e of d e a t h as a s p h y r i a t i o n f o l l o w i n g s t r a n g u l a t i o n . The a c c e p t a n c e of the e v i d e n c e of P W . 3 w a s a q u e s t i o n of f a c t which the l ea rn ed trial judge w a s e n t i t l e d to as c o r r e c t l y su b m i t t e d b y Mr. Mbise, learmd Sen io r Stat e Att or ne y. It go es w i t h o u t say in g that the judge was in a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to see the d e m e a n o u r and asse ss the c r e d i b i l i t y of the w i t n e s s (PW.3) than an a p p e l l a t e court. We see no r e a s o n for f a u l t i n g the tri al judge on this point. The c r e d i b i l i t y of ___ /8 8 P W . 3 is s t r e n g t h e n e d e ven f u r t h e r b y P W . 4 and PW.5. In their evidence they s u p p o r t P W. 3 in her e v i d e n c e that wh i l e in police lockup the 1st appellant, threatened her (PW.3) not to r e ve al to a n y b o d y about the f i g h t that h a d t a k e n p l a c e o u t s i d e the p o m b e shop n ear the 1st a p p e l l a n t ' s house* The thr e a t was th at if she (PW.3) did so, she (PW.3) w o u l d be b e w i t c h e d b y the 1st a p p e l l a n t ’s mother. The t h rea t w as h e a r d b y P W . 4 and P W.5 who w e r e also in p o l i c e lock-up. It w a s P W . 4 and P W . 5 w h o i nfo r m e d the p o l i c e abo ut the t h r e a t and as a result, the i n v e s t i g a t i o n a g a i n s t the 1st a p p e l l a n t w as i nt e n s i f i e d . This again, i n our view, reinforces the f a c t that P W . 3 w as a w i t n e s s of t r u t h as f o u n d b y the trial judge. , W i t h the e v i d e n c e of P W . 3 ac cepted b y the trial judge as c r e d ib le, Mr. N d i b a l e m a ' s c l a i m t h a t the d e a t h w a s a r e s u l t of a f i g h t b e t w e e n the d ec e a s e d and the secon d a p p e l l a n t t o g e t h e r wi th the 3rd accus ed h a s no leg to stand on* It i s c l e a r f r o m the e v i d e n c e of P W . 3 that the d e c e a s e d did not initiate the f i g h t a p a r t f r o m p l e a d i n g that the 1st a p p e l l a n t was, f o r a lon«j time, his wife. Instead, the e v i d e n c e showed th at all along, it w as the seco nd a p p e l l a n t and the 3rd accus ed who were beating and k ick in g the dec ea se d. The d e c e a s e d was d r a g g e d a wa y to the place, where, the n e x t m o r n i n g h e w a s f ou n d dead. We agree w i t h Mr. M b i s e ' s s u b m i s s i o n th at this ground ha s no merit. Next, we i n t e n d to deal w i t h the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n parade. As r e g a r d s the c o m p l a i n t r a is ed b y Mr. Ndi b a l e m a , the le a r n e d 9 a dv o c a t e and the sec on d a p p e l l a n t h i m s e l f in his a d dr ess in c o u r t on i den t i f i c a t i o n , we h a r d l y need to say m uc h o n it. This is because, as observed, once the e v i d e n c e of P W . 3 is accepte d as t r u t h f u l as fo u n d b y the trial court, there is no r o o m f o r d o u b t i n g the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the second and f i r s t appella nt s. We have alread y p o i n t e d ou t th at the re w a s plausible evidence to show that the app e l l a n t s w ere not s t r a ng er s to P W.3 and that the c i r c u m s t a n c e s at the time w e r e f a v o u r a b l e for u n m i s t a k e n identity. We agre e w i t h Mr. Mbi se that the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a p p e l l a n t w a s w a t e r t i g h t . Then there is the issue r a i s e d b y the second a p p e l l a n t th at P W . 3 was u n r e l i a b l e since she c o u l d n o t i d e n t i f y h i m at an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a r a d e held at the b a r r a c k s i n M a k a m b a k o in w h i c h he p a r t i c i p a t e d . O n this again, we m u s t say at o nce that the r e c o r d is loud and clear. The e v i d e n c e of P W . 3 d o e s not s u p p o r t this cla im . In her evidence, she c l e a r l y states that o n the day the identification parade w a s held at Ido fi barr ac ks , the sec ond a p p e l l a n t and the 3rd a ccused w e r e not among those w h o took p a r t in the parade. So, she did not i d e n t i f y the second a p p e l l a n t and third a c cu sed in t h a t p a r a d e f o r the o b v i o u s r e a s o n t ha t they w e r e n ot there. To our minds, this c a n n o t be t a k e n as a f a i l u r e on the p a r t of P W . 3 to i d e n t i f y the 2nd appellant, as he c l a i m e d at the h e a r i n g of the appeal. E v e n then, f r o m the record, a t the n ex t e a r l i e s t o p p o r t u n i t y when PW.3 saw the 2nd a p p e l l a n t and the 3rd a c c u s e d at M s a f i r i Pombe S h o p r w i t h o u t any delay, she al le r t e d the p o li ce (PW.6) w h o a r r e s t e d them. This again, in our considered view, is a ..../10 10 clear t e s t i m o n y of P W . 3 ' s f i r m and u n m i s t a k e n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the second a p p e l l a n t and the 3rd a c cu se d as the a s s a i l a n t s of the de ce ase d. The trial judge was e n t i t l e d in his f i n d i n g t ha t P W . 3 ’s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the second a p p e l l a n t w a s co nc lu s i v e . The c o m p l a i n t o n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a p p e l l a n t s is to our \ minds, g r ou nd les s. As f o r the 1st appellant, like the c a s e of the 2nd appellant, the e vi d e n c e of P W . 3 f u l l y s u p p o r t e d he r c o n v i c t i o n . W e ha ve s u f f i c i e n t l y d e m o n s t r a t e d that i t b e i n g a q u e s t i o n of c r e d i b i l i t y , she was p r o p e r l y c o nvi ct ed . Mr. Ndibalema's c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t the se ntence of five y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t as b e i n g e x c e s s i v e b e c a u s e she had stayed in r e m and p r i s o n f o r 4 y ea r s is* w i t h respect, unt ena bl e. In any case, this was an a s p e c t w h i c h w a s d u l y taken into a c c o u n t b y the tr i a l judge who, rightly observed that the o f f e n c e in vo l v e d w as a very serious one. She w a s c e n t r a l l y i n v o l v e d in e n t i c i n g the d e c e a s e d and the 2nd a p p e l l a n t into the r i v a l r y that resulted to the tragic d e a t h of the d e c e a s e d fo r wh i c h d e a t h p e n a l t y has b e e n i m p o s e d a g a i n s t the 2nd appellant. We think t ha t the se nte n c e of 5 ye a r s i m p ris on me nt , is b y any etretch of the i m a g i n a t i o n n ot ex c e s s i v e in the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the case. We see no r e a s o n to i n t e r f e r e w i t h the sentence. For these reasons, we dismi ss b o t h a pp eals in th ei r e nt irety. D A T E D at M B E Y A this 23*'cl d a y of August, 1995. ./II 11 A.S.L. R A M A D HA NI JUSTICE OF APPEAL L.M. MF A L I L A J U S T I C E OF A P P E A L Do Z. L U B U V A J U S T I C E OF A P P E A L I c e r t i f y that this is a true c o p y of the or ig ina l.