20041101 TZHC Dr es Salaam

/ ' I .. Ill THE HIGH COURT OF TANZi1NIA AT DAR ES S/\l:JJ\,~M ~=---~-.---......,.._...,__.,_, CRIMINAL f1PPE.t,L NO o 30 OF 2001 MSIL\M SAIDI Versus THE REPUBLIC RN:iPONDENT Thia is an appeal against conviction for rape and sentence of thirty years imprisonment metted out for the offence. The appellant is Mshamu Said and _in this appeal he is represented by Maleta and Ndumbaru Advoc~tes. ~he appellru1t 1 s conviction was based on the evidence of the victim of the •·•ffence one llsia Yusuph who testified as PW1 in the trial. l1Sin was !tged seventeen at the time sh& testified in court on 25/8/98. The offence wos o.lleged to h:rtre been connnitted by the nppellont on 11th July, 19980 The docto:--~ who exomined J'.sfo. to satisfy himself -whether rope hod been committed or not, testified as PW2. He is Dro Fred Paulo Mtaf!lkolo. He is a doctOt? working at Muhimbili Medicol Centre and he is o gynochologiat ~ Wh~t IW1 told the court is thot on 11/7/98 she hDd returned from the m:-..rket :md found the oppell:int olcne in the house. The appellont fr FW1 1 s brother in Iow. The oppellruit fo m~rried to Doiness Mchome who is the sister of PW1. It is on record that the victim of the offence used to s~ve as a house servant of the appello.nt c.nd his wife Dniness. They h,d two children. One~ o.ged 9 nnc the other 6. When Hl11 returned from the morket the children J were not o.t home. After she went into the house the o.ppelb.nt required her to give him ilfiformc.tion o.bout events which t"ok pbce when she travelled to Moshi with his wife. PW1 could not furnish nny information beccuse she told the ~ppell~nt tho.t o.fter their o.rrivnl she po.rted r with his wife o.nd went to their hour-:e. 'lhe o.ppello.nt was not satisfied with the o.nswer. He thrco.tened to kill FW1 if j:he 4- . resisted giving him inf~tien o.1tout what his wife did while shew-~ ot Moshi. She so.id he had o. knife o.nd pcn,a. IW1 insisted tho.t she'kllow nothing end herself ond his wife were living se~rntely in Moshi.., By then tho doot's were locked. Th·e o.ppello.nt o.pproo.ched PW1 with a knife, , ~ threatened her, pullad eff ho:lt underi,onts nnd a sld.rt .which she h-,d on, and then r~ped her. As he wtlS raping her, he threhtened her with o. knife th~t if she cried, she would be killed. lifter r:1ping her, the o.ppell:mt informed FW1 that he hnd chnnged his mind ond he woe no longer going to kill h(;r bec~use she hnd seen his body ~nd the appellont hed seen hero. 2 LD.ter she m::.n,ged to escape ond rept,rled the m~tter to her siF:ter -:,t Kilwc. Roo.d. They in turn, reported the incident·to the wife of th€t !:1.ppell~nt e:nd eventually to -th0 police station where PW1 )~s given o PF; for treatment. She :I , ended up being treated n.t the Muhimbi.15. .Medi.-:c11 Ce-11tre where she was cdmitted fnr ·two -days. · ·The i!octor· wh~. exo.ipined her, confin.10-':1 th:1t ·J?l.'11 wns raped. The. wife •f the- appellc.nt is .D. PAf:.:ce- woaii:n ".rh"': w~$. !"Ol'.,king !lt Ui'a.fiki hy . then.,. She testified h::-v:i.ng ·received ·t}j.e inform~t:Lon obout ·the rnpe and ·assisted ilsin. tn .. ho.ve the m~tter reported to _the pnlice,,. fo.ter she_ escorted Pd1 to·· ._--~"8llit::ll fN•·treatment. Appo.rent.ly thE:- D.ppcllc.nt c1id no:t give his defe:r,ce. He req_uested ·for a ··with c.1ro.woJ. l"tf the- trinl m:,gistrate .on \he ground that he die' not h'."·ve confi- 1 - dence ··thr.vt justice~ provnil •. His .request wets turned dl"twn •. He refused to 1'. · ·teetify o.nd the trio.1 m::lgistro.te wr,.,te _n judgment nn the evidence whi.ch · w:is on ' ··record-. He -ended up ·convicting the ci'.PP€tll~nt end- sentencing -him. -to ;o ye~re imprisonment ..__He wns aggrieved and filed this c:ppeo.l. _ There .are seven grounds of C1.ppeal~ .The trio.l m~gist:rate i~ faulted for 11 hoving o.ccepted o.nd relying nn .the .evicence of PW2 who is c.n unr~liable ~ r . t , f-or considering the evidence nf PW-:S .in 'contrnvention f",,4 the kw .one for relyir.g 1 •.. , ·!)n her evidence .for being 1iosed beet:iuse he refused· to withdr~w_ from the c~e 1 for denying the ~ppellant the right'. to \le fend:-. himself, for convicting- the, , I o:ppellant ·on the unc-orrobor~ted evir.:ence of PW1 tm~1 for relying on contrndictor,°' ... - --prosecution evidence.- · ' The hen.ring of·this appeal woe ·conducted by -written submissions*· '.Ihe. Le:irned • , _/_ -· .i\dvocnte·fo:r the oppell:mt and the -Len~ecl St,.te. )\ttorney for· the Republic Me ... '· ·. commended . for their ·efforil in the. p~ep~ro.tion of the ·suomi~sions, '.lhe · e.dvocotes - ·' ·for the_ o.ppellnnts in :p::lrticulcr must h'.:ve spent o. lot of time. to find· o way in- 1 ' which the cose for .the · appellont could :go through. I · While· the efforts mode ore. reo.J'.ly ':npprecfo.ted, I do not find merit in ony of the grounds of cppeo.l reli-ed upo~ for reo.sons to be ~lo.ined •. I '! PW2 is a ~ocologiert; He -i.s e. ', epici.:,Jj.ze-d &octal'~- 'lhe advoe!ltes for the 1 o.ppellnnt ore- .chillenging ~y he wns,,, ·~oned while he w:ts not listed os·o. ·winess to be cnlleu· ofter the p!!eliminciry he::i.ring~ The arguments fbr ·the I' -. -, 0 , 1 - , ~ i,r the appellnr,t is th~.t S~etion l . 28~- (1) & (2) ··of·the- Grimin6l P ~ du.re _/ict_-!1985 wns contraven~d. The ~etion bnrs cnlling of o. wi.tttess· whose· .... , statement ·wm; not reo.d o.t the Committaf Proceedings without. !l r.eason!:tble notice ;· mving been given by the preeew'i!i.o~ '· . I t6 the !lccused o.nc1 hfo o.clvocote.,: , . With greo.test :ree-pe-et te the Leo.med Advoc~te for the orpell~t, j,he •,1, • I ,_., ~ --- ·Section is -very 'Vey__ clear. ~ ,e •peaking -~bout trinls in the High Court ·~ncl not in the subordin• COUJl't., SeeTicm ~89 is in Pirt. VIII of· -the Criniin~l ; ii · Procedure. Act 1 198j, PD.1t'i V!l'I deals with the procedure -~-:ir trial before the ;I ·, I .. High Court. 3 , - / ~ ' 1 i/ ' It is true thc.t for trio.ls in the High Court, _tt witness whose statement :I , WM not rend over to the o.ccus&d during committal proceedings, c~nnot be .:1lloued { .. . to be co.llod o.s o. witness o.t the trfo.l in th,=.: HigJ:i Court. ,, unless .,_ reasono.ble ,'/ I notice hns been given in w:dtin,:; b:r the p·.- sccut{on I I :to the !lccused ~nd his /' ' o.dvocnt&., .I ,; , I In this1-npr::enl, 7 thu section hos bu&n guee,d •1 out of contert ~md it fa ~ real misdirection··on the p2rt of th~ l:ldvoco.te for tl.1e ,dr,:relb,nt. The section is tollclng of rui e:ntirely different situD.tion so the question of decl'o.ring the evidence of • 1, '1 - Pw2 o. ·nullity end whtet not does not nrise. Tnht .provision is not o.:pr,lic~ble in ., ,' the subordinate courts. ~·- :/ ,' Regru-ding the second ground of -'.1ppenl .it is true th-;,t PW3 was o comretant I but not o. compellcble witness ogcin.st the 6.ppelbnt. This fr: cle:-rly rroviced .:/ .J for under Section 130 (1) of the To.nzonio}Evidence Act, 1967. Musch us it is ;) : . not on rE:cord 'it1hether PW3 wos informed of her right, her evidence ogtJin.st the accused did mit occt:lSsion ~Y micc'.:lrrioge o':f the juP.tice ~nd her evirJence did not a.ssiFt the court in determinin,tr- whethet or not r~:pe \tns cbmmi tted. l~.s sho;~ eo.rlier 1 sh0 testified on receipt of . ' tre fnform,tion about PW1 being r~pcd., She assisted IW1 to rer,ort the motter to the /Police -~c1 ~scorted her to hosri t~l. I· ,, That "fr whc.t she did., This evidence q"icl bot in '.my w":J.y prejudice the :.r:pelJ::n-1:.., / In ns for ns ground three is concermed, it h~s been covered in grounc1 t,,.,0 a.m1 there is no neecl for repetition~ ,,, In Jround four of the o.ppeo.1,.'. th0 trinl m~gistr~te is being cht11lenged fc:r refusing to withdraw from the case w~en the accused requested him to do so. The ,' advocate is of the orinion thc.t ~is/refusal occc.ssionec1 C! serious miscorri~ge of justicb' because the trilll m-:-g:istb.te is bin.sec. With grentest respect to the ,/ ; Lecrned advoco.te, this i.s c. serious allegction. The ndvoc::te of the o.ppell~nt is , 'I informed tho.t c.ccording to th0,, position of the low, o withdrD.w of o. jur__lge or a ~.· ,I m.'.:lgistr.:tte from the rroceedings is not outom"tic once it i,cc; requested by the i I/ I • o.ccusod or o:ny of the :r~tie~ in the 1-'roceeclin,:i:s. If such o. tren(: fo allowed, 'I ' '/ I it will omount to rivinG the/ lXll'tics an orro:rtunity of choc,sinc: ~ ju,1ge o:;:< f' •I mo.gistro.te:: who woul<.l he.-:::r their ,, coses. ' ,',' ,'J I ' In a recent case determined by the Court Apreol - Th')t iG the c~se of ~ j JLP..w.e..;n~Ji ~--fiES..~~.....J,n,,$r~.9Jor Ge_n e:rpJ.._£f.J?ill~~Atto.rn_ez y~_nf::_r.Q.l Civil AppaD.l No. 1~ of 1999/ the Court of Appe·::l g:,ve three conditions eihich r/ :1 justify the withdro.wo.l of 0: 1 judge or m::1gi.str::-cte frcm the proce0dings. <,' "' There must be1 evidence 11 of boc1 blood b,::tweE:n the li tig".'lnt nnc1 the _:; ,,., judge / mcgtstrrite 2. The jur:'ge J/mngistrote mu~t h-::ve cloRe rel':'.tionship \1ith the (, ,/ o.dversnry ~o.rty or one ~f them :i ' 3.. The judge/ mbgistro.te or ~ member of hfr / h1::r close f~mily hos c.n intere;t in the outeoma of -r.hc litig:ttion , i-ht;r than the ' . • . -· q;i} ~· . .tJot_J. -~-~ ....,. 4, - The~ o.ppellt:mt die:· not :eive any 6f the o.bovo reo.sons. Instead he w:i.s morely suspecious thnt the trio.l~,gistro.t<: WM bic.s. The impre:ssion which I Get is tho.t ;<'.-:,'· , the o.ppell:i.nt h1winc henrc1 .;he evidence whibh wns o.cklucec1 Dg::inst him, he wos :- ., o.frcd.c1 cf focine the obvious one:' he wo.s ju:::-t lcokine; fox '.:'. w-::.y of gettinrs out of justice. Wh-:: t ever the cnse coulc' be, , it .~ · :: ; o hopeless o.ttemr,t • In ns fo.r o.s r:;rounc] five of the np};'t"12l is concerned, it h~s to suffer the 8Cine results ns the ' '•others,. It i.s on record th:it the o.prel!.::'.:'..:.lt wo.s given .:;.n opr,ortunity to defend himself. Mu ch o.s he h~d been attending the court throu0 hout ~nd he he~rd the f evidence which wo.s tenc'ered, he r0quested for the suprly of the rrocet:dinrss. The 1 ' ~ ,, ,; supr,ly of proceeuin,·s fpve him on opportu:pity of rnising b~seless o.lleg~tions o.eo.inst the trinl m:::3istrnte 1 c.nc1 it wb.s blso o. ch'.::nce for seekinr; for o ch".ln 0 e of venue of the trial r.:i~gistro.te. \'Jhen the trinl magistrate directed him :1ccor- oinz to the lo.id cown prc.ctice, he r~fuserJ to exercfae his right ~nri he insisted 1 on wh~t he h::-.-:1 been told w~.s not possible., Under such circumstances, he cminot be heard <9<~~?l~ns thnt h0 wns cenieu ::i. richt to clefend himself. He W!lS t;iven an opportuncty t~ ~&!Jci.se hic:: rir,;ht but h~ refused to exercise his rip;ht • I ,, Ground six of the nppec.l concerns cor:roboro.tion of the evirlence of the cic- 11 .I tim of the offence PW1o As correctly pointed ' out by the Leo.rned Stnte Attorney. Section 127 of the Evidence Act 1967 o.s,omended by Secticn Z1 of thi::: Sexu:11 Offences (Specicl Provisions) Sub-Section 7, where the trinl m~Gistrote is so.tisfiecl with the credibil.ity of the rlctim th~t she / he is telline nothir:r, ·, but the truth, carroborntion fo not requ1red. Howeverj in the cnoe in whicr :.,·:s o.rpenl hns beGn preferred, there \·ms sufficient corroborction. FW2 is the (loctc: who exnmincd PW1. PW2 confirmed th::t hi,s' ex~in:i.tion rcvenlecl thD.t FW1 wns rcped~ The PF, which FW2 hcd tenderec in court shows ,, th~t the rosults were highly sug~estive of rope. FW2 wo.s a.lso ch~.11enged fo-c h:-:vinCT imrroperly tenderGd the PF,. ., This however, w.:,.s just a misc1irection. 'He wns the pror,or I>erson to tenc1er it been.use he w2s the one who (lenlt with tho exornin".)tion of the: victim anc1 recorded \ the results. In the b.st srcun·' of the 6ppea11 the tri~l m~gistrnte ic, ch-:-llenged for ' ' relyinc; on thE: prosecuticn evidence which'wns full of lies. IW1 wD.s the only person who coul,) tell who.t exo.ctly h::i:rpo.ned .. ,She so.id she"'~s thret:1tened \>,.:.th n knife thnt she would be killed if •he shmtted. She olso expresse<~ nn or,:i.nion ' i,t;,' th~ shout inc would not even ·h!1ve o.ssisted her be:c:i.use of the h--c rel -:>tion1:hip which the a.:ppello.nt ha.d with his nei.ghbour!So ~mmedi:ttely -:>fter the r-'pe, she rushed o.nd informed her sister. They went to see the wife of the npfell~nt. The m::.tter wo.s reported to the Police. -The vici;im '. ,.,,,~.s tr!ken to hotir,ibl for exnmi- n:-:tion -:,nc:1 the exnmin--tion reveo.1ed thnt PVJ1 w.:,.s rnpec1. Where i"' the contr~di- ',, ction? Where is theli lie•• Whot I eo.n stiy, fa, th~t the prosecution cvi1lence is very consistent o.nd the nppello.nt was properly convicted. - 5 O.?r,eol is entirely dismissec1o ,. r~ ::.·' ◄ ,_. ,, ,,...:,., \ ;~ "J;· ;{i :1.~ ,. : 1! ,, .'.,·; '''.I )