20030627 TZCA Mwanza

:·. T 111,J \N z:" ------1 ( r,OR·''M• V -'· -~ • K :'.VIN,:,. NTAKIM'...7.,I 0000000000000000 APPELL.'.iNT THE :l~PU'3LIC RES:EONDEWT (~ppeal from the conviction of the High Court of Tmz8.nia i-1.t Tab0ra) L dated the 11th d8y of Msy 7 1999 _______in --·-· Criminal Sessions 0ase Noo 11 of_1993 The a~pella.nt 7 K3.vin9. Ntakil:!azi, ,v:1.s ch~t.rge,1 with .3.n:J C convicted of the offence of murder contrary to section 196 of the Penal C:ideo The High C0urt (Mwita, Jo) sentenced hi!!! to the st.::-.tutory pcm.'l.lty of ae.'3-th by hangingo The- a-p-pell<1nt hc1s appealed (lg;:i_inst both convicti•')D ,3nj s~nt211ceo Before the Dir,. ctor of Public :Prosecutions o:?nterea nol le 0 prosequ~ uncle~ .:the provi.sions --0:f--···section 91 (1) of the CriD.inal ?rocedure Act 1,~5, th-2 ar,pel.l'lnt ,.-,1.s jointly c-hsrgerl with Ntakima:«i Chubw.~, the f::i.t'her of the ap-pe l l ':'.n t and Lu sh:.1.si ;-:'.hubw.::to After the • I 2 I death of these other two persons, the triql proceedej against the appelle.nto The de~~:~sc.:I lived at Ny_:t~~daho VilL-1.ge in Kasulu District. The prosecution case W9.s that th2 nppel l 0.nt was w.:mtea by the loccil 0CM authority in the area in cr:-nn2ction with 9. suspected crill'inal offence. On 0r e.bout 250 5. '1991? the~ dece3.sed, 3. meniber of the mili tic:. together 1:1i th Le-:-n::trd KaQhang;i (F:!'1)? anoth-~r rnilitia, were sent to the h'Juse of the a-p11ell:::,.nt to su111r.,on bi::;1 to the 0CM office. The appellant rcfuEed to coo2 out of his house. Leon9.rd KaRh".11ga (PW1) went b::tck t•'."l the CCM office to report the \... appell:"mt' s r2fusal to respond whil~ th2 deceas(;:d iHS left outside the house of the appel l~.nt. .:.ccoT:pe.niGd by thr2e other '.-:>ili ti:;,., ?W1 went b'J.ck to the house of th,.; .,.:.pp-::11,nt. The d2c0as0d 'lild the -3.ppell:-:nt weren0where to bE: seen. Ii. searchinr pTI'ty w8.s Q0unted ar:mnd the area. The body of the dece:1sed was found buried About tw-::, d;J.ys 1-J.ter, the appellant wqs a.rrested anJ ch:=::.rged ,-rith the murder of tha deceas2d. At th:.• trial in the High C:)urt ~ the sole evidence in support of the cb!:1.rge agqinst the ;:ippe1.l:rnt was that of Bir3.b'1buye N::labon::i" (PH2) 'J the wife of Ntakir.,-:.;,zi Ch.ubw.,:,_ (now dc:c2e:sed). Shr-: testificf to the effect tb"lt on 25.501991, in th;:1 r!,orning? she w,s "It her lvmse with her husband? Nt2.ki\"?,zi Chubw:1. 1-lhi le th,,;:-e 'J th-2 appellant had '.'l.n 8.Xe with wbich ·upon .3.rriv1l ::!.t P•·!2' s house, he cut the ckce3.sed s.t the back of tc'Je hc'ld o Nt::?.1:ir.,:1zi Chubwo.. :1lso struck th:: dece-:::i.sed with s'.1:::2 :1xe: ,:md ch-J.sed her (?W2) -3.W.J,";T fror1 the scene. The deceased died inst~ntly. She reported the m~ttcr • . I I 3 to the Divisi.onal Secretary wbo she lef. to the sc0ne of crime ,-,here the body of the deceased w.:=ts found burie 1.~ in a nearby shnr:~b"l. of her husband, Nts.kimazi Chubwa. In his defence, the app2ll~nt r~ised the defence of alibi. He did not h~w-:,~er coriply wit~_.!'.le provisions of section 194- (4-) and (5) of th2 CriQinal Procedure Act, 1985. Th2 2ssence of his defence was th'3.t from 6.5.1991 to 5.6.1991, he w~s in Kibondo District. Therefore, he could not h~ve been at tbc scene of cri~e at Nyamioaho Vill3.ge in K::1Sulu District on 25"5.1991, wh0n the deceased w~s killed. The le:rrnea trie. l ju,~ge ,;1fter c'."..reful C\Jnsif.leration of the defence of alibi r:1ised, anr1 th2 evi~lcnce of P1AT2, 0i8. not 0..cc0rd :.=my weight tq it. In ~tgrecmC?n-t with th2 2..ssC::~-sors who s-?.t with him, the le'll'ned tri::..l ju:::ge f'iund the evidence nf F~J2 crer:1ibl2 and truthful. The ::i.ppell1:nt w-9.s c"'nvict2j ':ln:, s,2nte:nced to C1C'3.th. Mr. Ban·tur:'.tki, le:>.rncd c'<''ilfrisel, representec'l the appell:mt in this appe3.l. He filed three grriuncls 0f c0mpl:J.int. First, the.t the learned tri c.i.l ju,~ge erred in f,3.ct :md l"lw in C"lnyicting the appellrmt of the :>ffence of li'urc~er when it h::i.d n~.t boC::n -pr0ved for certSLin th£1.t th-2 3.ppell:-mt h8.fl killed th,2 d2ceascd. That is, th2.t the identificati()n ·of the 8.DpelUnt hJ.d not be::0n proved conclu~ively. He ~lso sub~itted thut accoraing to the evid~nce of Leon'll'd Kar.:hanga (P'w1) and Birab."lbuye Ndab0nda (P1tJ2) on which the c9.s2 ag1.inst the ~rppell::,.nt W':H, he:1.vily relied 0n, it is not shown whether th0 offence t(;ok plc.1ce at night or ;1 uring the day. It is possible th::,.t the ,:,ffcnce t0ok pl '.'..CG :J.t ni~ht in wbich c~,s0, • . I -- 4 the conditions for the identification -·:.f the appelle,nt were not favourable. With unfavourable condition for the visual identifi- cation of the appellant, Mr. Banturaki ardently maintained that it was unsafe to sustain the conviction against the appel la.nt on a serious charge of murder as in this caseo As the evidence on the iaentification of the appellant is doubtful, he urged that the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt. Mrs. Neema Jos-eph, learned State· Attorney, appeared for the respondent Republico Responding to Mr. Banturaki's submission on '-L ground one, she conceded that the learned_ :trial judge relied on the evidence of PW2 in convicting the appellant. She referred to the record at page 31 line 15 where the judge indicates why he relied on the evidence of ?W2 as a basis for convicting the ap-pellant. She said th~ trial judge found P1.J2 a credible and truthful witness, who, it being day time, saw the appellant cut the deceased with an axe, at their home. P\:l2 also saw the appellant and Nta..ldmazi 0hubwa, her husband, chase her 8-Way after killing t;;_,_c:-: deceased. P'v/2 had therefore ample opportunity to see and identify the appellant, Mrs. Neema Joseph emphasized. She pressed for the dismissal of ground one which she said was without foundation. We agree with Mr. Banturaki, learned counsel that the cruci2l and indeed the only issue in tbis case is the identification of the appellant. That is whether the circumst,mces at the time the deceased was killed were fBvoursble for the proper idd~tification of the appellant. Mr. Bantu;r:-aki vehemently ovmed that the conditions were not favourable because, from the evi:senr.:e of ?vVl and PW2, it is not indicated whether the offence was co~mitted • . '. I I during the night '.)r ~ Ety tir:ie o 1.-li th 12:Te'J.t r<2spect to the 'in learned criunsel, h2 is n0t su-pportedLthis subr;ission by the evidence 0n re:cord o Fro~ our cursory gl'lnce· of the record, it is 3.t one cle;,-r th.J.t PW2 in her evidence in chief cn.tegoricci.lly st'.'l.ted th-=tt she s·".W the 3.fpclls.nt cutting the rleceased in the ~'.Jrning~ So, the question of the 0ffencc? taking pl~ce at night_as suggested by Mro Bmturnki is not 'lt all in issue o Having regTI'd to the f:ict th-:::i.t the incident t•,ok place during the d'1y, the le-'lrned tri::i.l juclge was convinced the.t judge said: In this c?-se PW2 snw the accused -3.nd deceased col!!ing tow.'3.rds ther,! (sic) while quarrelling: she saw the c1ccusec1 cut the ~ccensed with "-TI exe .-~t their hoJ:TJe, sh0 snw tho ciccused .'.Uld her husband thre:atening her when she tried · to cry out when she wi tn2ssed the killing: she s:.cw the ::iccuscd 2c11:I her husband ch2sin~ h~r frn~ the scene of the killingo Hence she h3d ample time to observe the ~ccusedo Such 0bscrv3- tion t0ok plACC at close rangoo It v.ras durinf: d ::-.y tirne, the o.ccuSl~Cl is the son of the husb'"nd of :PW2, the ::iccused was, thcrcf0re well knov-m to P',J2o Hence th2 question of mist:iken identificqti0n foes not ~rise. The le'.'-I'ned judge further st",ted: • /0006 I I 6 As I hwe ....._lre,.dy s .id I saw )?1•!2 1 give cviherice in C')Urt 'lnd I w,...,_s impressed. I h~ve no hesit~tion in b~sihg convicti0n on her Fr0~ this, we b.'1ve no sbrc~7 of 0-'lubt th 1.t tho le.:":'_rncd ju;Jg:e :mo the asse:ssrirs were convinced 2-nc~ c0rrcctly so 9 in our vi2w th'lt P\.J2 w'.ls ,, credible .:mcl truthful witness. She w,-:.s in such n position th0.t her evidence on th6 i:'lentific:>.ti'1n of the :1ppell-·.n-c vms we.tertight. On tbe evi:'lE:ncc, Fe ,re s1.tisfiec'I th::.t the tests l.J.ic'l :J0wn in 1JJ.ziri Ar.8.ni v. Republic (1980) T.L.R. 250 w0rc 11~et in this c3.se. There is no r2ri t in the· gr,:iuna pert:;j_ning to the id entifie.s.tion- 0:f-the n:ppe 11 =:nt·.;-·--- In ground two, Mr. B::mtur,J.ki s")u,::ht to f~.ult the tritll ju~ge in relying on the evi:-:ence 0f PW2. This? he s::id W'lf."· been.use there w.:.i,:; ::i grudge betivcen PW2 ;)nrl th2 =1pp•2l l ,nt. Our perus::il of the record sh0ws that tbis aspect w~s not bnrne out frnr the evidence laid bef0rc tri~l c0urt. hs Mrs. Nec~a Joseph, lc~rnea ( State £-.ttorney? c0n ten~ea 9 this is •"-.17 :-ispcct which is being :i:,-.1.ised 3.t this st.::~.ge 'm ·:lppe'll. It c:i.nnot thcr2fore be r. b.,sis upon wbich t:-i f::,_ult the tri':11 jui1g2. The· issue w.1.s sir:i:pl;r not b,~fore the tri:,.l c·rnrt. 1.-112 reject it. The third gr0und of crit1:pl..-1-int h''.1G th . . . t tlK :-tppell nt W,'ls d-~ni2d tho c]e.fence ')f ~llibi. In 0,.:scnce, the .--lefcnce of' ::a.libi r1e::ms th\t theac•eused, the appellant in this c:1se, c:iul0 not COD[;)i t the o:ff,mce b2c:1use 2.t tln.t ti;;,e, he W?.s s.wr:.y in ,'.:1. different place fro~ the scene ~f cri~e. In th~t case, if in~ • I 7 in 1 · ... ..:i ·t- b.l.3 case, the iJentific~ti0n :J.B l1 -_•.1::rpcn..,,--,:_ of the appellant is conclusive, tben the defence of 3libi f~lls. In this ccise, the tri ?.l judg(::; h•:•vinf .-:::i.ccept0d. the evi::'1ence of the court's discretion not to :1cc,)rd :c.ny wei~ht to the :i2fence of c:1.libi. This is what the 1 ·,.v, provi::ks un,1er s2ction 19LJ- (5) Md (6) of the Crimin2.l Procedure Let, 1985. The Qatt0r r2garding: the defence of alibi h~ving been ae~lt with in accord~nce with the l-'.1.w, Mr. Banturaki, le'c.rned C')L.msel, c.,nnot now b<? betrd to cor:,pla.in tbe.t th2 c1.:pp21 L1.nt W':'-.S denied the (1efence of o.libi. The 't_ fact that the counsel \-Jho (lefe::·nded tbe appcll:i.nt '1.t the? tria.l did not give notice in terms of s2cti0n 194 (4) of the Criminal Procedure I~ct 1985, -'ls Mr. B.3.ntur~ld cL1.inc-'.'l, is of n::, av'.':.il eithc?r. Wh2.t th,: hiarned tri8.l judgi? c1id in this c,rn2 is thr:: c0nsequence of failure to give notice under subsection (4) of the Crimin:J.l Pr')cedure Act 1985. All in all th::?ref0re, we c1-r0 s1.tisfier.\ tb':tt th-2 crmviction of the appell-?.nt in this co.se w•~.s ,justified" W:2 _,.lisrr:iss the ~~pe8.l in its entirety. D. '.6. LT.JBUV :~ JUSTICE OF t:..PPE.u, -·---~ . . ~·-·----V"•- E.N. MUNDO ----~-----·--·_, ____ JUSTICE OF .:.ppE;'~L H. }_'f;-·-1'-T:S'fl:K:CL.;,, JUSTICE OP. .ff·P:~:aL • I ••• • 8 8 / / · ;::i_· tr U-:?! copy I ~ertify th~t this l.S . o_f' the or·1.g1.m:1.lo . t- , . , ~- '\.~~- • -~ ·, .•. '<·· J '~ .' ,j "'- c·-\ t :.) \ -c,'·\ ! ' \·l \'. - I .~ \ ', i, ~ ·-~ __,.,,· - ',.,_'"'-->,< l_ . •