20110907 TZHC Dodoma

"®f' .. · ~: ~ . .' •:· w: ", .: : . 4 :a 4. . tp: . •Illa.1th iiUlll!ll.L■_ lllllll3■••-------- . ·. ~.·_ ~ . ', ': ·:. IN THE HIGH .~ COURT OF. TANZAN.IA· . .. ... ·, . . ' •. '. -': -::- - :_•. AT DODOMA .. .. (~PP_ELLATl;_'JUJ~.ISDICTION) {DC) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 63 OF.2011 ... · ~-:-\. ··-··•. . { Originai Criminal Case No. 54 of 2008 ·.. -·· -.-:> . _:·_ of:K~ngw.a District Court:·at Kongwa) ____ ··:· JA(:.KSON_ .MlENDA ... ~_........ AP.PELLANT . .. ·_· VERSUS : -:- ·._·'· THE REPUBLIC .-.~ ............ RESPONDE:NT .JUDGMENT 26/8/2011 & 07/9/2011. KWARIKO, l: The appellant herein was formerly charged with the offence of causing Grievous Bodily Harm c9ntrary to s_ection 225 of the Penal Code Cap. 16 Revised Edition 2002. It was alleged by the Prosecution that the appellant had on the 12th day of May, 2007 at about 21.00 hours at Mautya village within Kongwa District in Dodoma Region unlawfully caused grievous bodily harm to one CHRISTINA D/0 MGANGA by stabbing her in her stomach and left buttock and caused her to suffer grievous bodily harm. The 1 ~--" ·:-:· ... ·. pt:: ,• .. '. ·.. ·.:·. ' . .. .... . . .. :7'> •• •• • ,,', ,: •• , •· -'.• .· .. '. .· ·. · ,., . . _..··.::: . ·: ::·:.··> _,. · :_ ·. ···~.?.-::. .' • I I • . ''.· ;. . ·... . . appell-ant:denied the charge. .he'rfce .. . ; . ,, his_:full~· trial.· The facts .... of the . .• ( ) ·case, ~s revealed by th~ .pro:s:e.cution. ev-td~nce 'can :_b~ sumrri·ari~ed· ·. a~ herE!under.; <•< ./ .·•.. •· .. ,) <· .' '. : ::-·. . . .. F ' ,· . : :_.;·_... . ·. . ... . ·.•· '.. .<·:· _-; ·.·. . \•:·::· ·-·:':-. : .. :.. : . . :. . ··:;: on':_·· t.~,~-- -~ater.i_aL;_:·~Jght_·.· t~e. ,.co°iliplainant CHRISTI~A __ ·. :OiO MGANG_A (PWi.) ··was· selli.ng. c~oked,~meat in a local -.brew shop in·.· . .: ·t~· . . . ., ~=i'her·::· village_ ·while her. husband the appellant herein was selling ·-}-~e~h rneat. Then· the···t\N·o left .the shop:_t~~ards their hom·e and ~n- the way" . . the appell-art. . . - tried . t:o.~·fell ·. PW1 dOWD ...•· :·by kickirig. her legs but ·•orily the bucket: she was. carrying ·droi,ped. When PWl. wa?· lifti_rrg the bucket:the ·appelia.nt stabbed her~ by a··knife in the .. · .·,:. :- . . . . " .· . ·. . . ., . : _:. ·abdo(Jil~n : -· . and then .her . ·buttocks. . . . . They struggled· ove·r the knife . and. the appellant ran a:w'ay. PW1 raised alarms while going to the village.chairma,~, one DISOILE S/O BUARAHINDI, PW4. When PW1 reached at PW4's she fell down and lost consciousness and by then other people had gathered there. PW4 covered PWl's abdomen bleeding wound with a piece of Khanga and took her to the village Executive Officer's · and to Police . S:~ation where PF3 . ~ . .. (Exhibit Pl) was issued .for . her· to go to htjs'pital. PW1 was . ·.'. admitted until on 29/6/2007. .:-·.·::·... The appellant escaped from the village after this incident until he resurfaced in ·July, 2008 and was arrested and charged. 2 . ·.~ ...... ·.·· . "' ... .. - ,.. ·I ~· ,· ,· '. . . .•. :· •.·,.·. ·. . . . .. . '. ! ·.. . . • . .. . . :-;.·~,-:::::>' . . :_:_.._\ .-··.~\·....· · ·: . ..· . . .. .. ~. ~ . . .... . :=-.:• . ' . . ,. .. , .. . .. . ,. . -~. . ~ .:-··. -~ - .· . . . .. . ... In his· d~fe~_ce.·:the· ap~;H~nt de.nie:d\h~.-.a·u~--~~ti·~~s ~hd ~aid . >;-.t:hat·..he· .had _s~p~-~~,6~·q. ~ith. ':the com·J·1~·i.ha·n{{~· Mar~h, 2007 and :;...·, :< ·.· ~-· •. .. .' .:·..: : . . . . .·. '• . : .... ·• ·..'. . ,. . _.: ' . . . : . . . .. , . . ···:.:.0f1ly _: tJsed to: vis.it :. her for. thefr <children's sake .... that - PW1 · ..-:$.Jqf~;ned::::~~(~·{.i_r{,'.-2.0\)~· on. accou·nt .o_f .their chi!d's:sicknes·s: ~nc/ . ..t_hat is when 'he. \~~s·. arre·sted. He further hea~d the. ail~g·at·i~ns . . ~ . ' . . in .. . .. . .·. . . .court . an:d . ·that the· ·.: .·· -;- . . complainant . had cut wounds . even:•before . . he . •.. ;_· married .her.: He d'i~pl.i'te_d Jha;t he -was :e~er in . . . .. . .. . . . . ·1:he ·loca·1 b.f.ew shop on the .·material .. . .. night.· . -. · ., .·_··:.At.the .. · ... ·end \>(the :tri~I the ·court' fodr1d::that . .. •,.,: ... .·, .:.:: ·_. , the prosecution : . ', __ case ·was proved · to •the ....standard required in law against the appellant, ,· was-. fou~c{;... ,~idilty ... and . accordingly convicted and sentenced to eight (8) years imprisonment with corporal punishment of twelve strokes of a cane. The appellant was aggrieved with the trial court's decision hence filed this appeal against conviction and ,sentence. In his memorandum of appeal the appellant through his lay hand raised about seven grounds of appeal_ but he is essentially complaining that the prosecution case against him was not proved beyond reasonable doubts. He raised six points of complaints against the prosecution evidence. 3 . ·.· ·.· ·Through Mr. Nchimbi .learned Stat~: Attorne:y· the responde_nt 1 1 .. R_epubllc opposed this appeal against cghviCti6ri a.rid gave reasons ·for\he sa~e. :. _.:- _: _ . -• · .. . . .. .. . .•·· _:}}/:-· Firstly/ tf-i·~_.:_·a.·~pe·uant complained that the trial c~urt' erted :····:, .··,.·· . . . ·. .. . . . . to . ·.· conyict . him. o:ri'° .: lnsu_ffic.ient prosecution evidence·.. Thi~- ·;·court:·· 9_gr~es· .with_., "\~,,t_ I ' • • • •• • • ;• ~L ': -Nchirhbi ·.· learned State Atto~ney '. tha~ · th~. : '.:\,. •f : .·' • .• . • • • • : • ' • •, • - · p·ros·ec~:t.i9n . proy~=~ _.·:the >·:c~se · againsf the appellant.· b~yond reas6_nabl"e doub.ts. Firstly/ PWl 's evidence as to her relationship : : : .. : ; .. · . : .. . . : ~ . . . . with the. appellant was cortoborated . by PW2, . her father, PW3, . . . \ CHAR.LES MKUNDA:·an·d PW4, DISOILE BUARAHINDI who testified that the two parties _\~iere neither separated nor divorced at the .·. ·. •.' .· . time of this incident. That, the fact that the two did business in the local brew ·shop at the material night was corroborated by PW3 and PW4. That, the two left the local brew shop together towards their home and there is no evidence to show that PW1 lied that it was the appellant who assaulted and injured her. Thus, it is an afterthought that this case was fr:~med against the . -~. · appellant since he did not show this concern dutfng the trial (See FADHILI RAMAOHAN TEMBO VR, Criminal ·_·:Appeal No. 304 of 2007, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Arusha (Unreported)). In the second complaint the appellant is u·p in arms that his defence was not considered, by the trial court. Again this court 4 : _::. e ' ., .. . - i:,: •• -11' ' .··.··.· . ... '··. '•• ·. a~rees with the Republic that the d~fe~·c~_:; V\fas·. 'qohsid.ered.:ald~g .. wlth,.the prosecution evidence and it wai·.-:t6und · th~f t.he same did . not· ra1~e.·:-any_ . doubt on. . the evidenc~ .. .--: . . by__,the. -p-r6~ecution._· Thus, , this . .. com.plai_½_t)s_ . : .. . . ~aseie$S and it is rejec;ted . .. . . ·, . . : ·... ·... _ :. . . ~;. ·: :·. ,· . . . _...... 0 •' ,, . . ...... :· . ,• -f ., I • •, • ~• • .• '.- .·. •·i·-(•_.As for th_~ ·c·ompl_aint that th·e trial court erred to consider.·, an.d ,. .. convict . on. the_ .... ·evidence . of fa.mily . members this. ·court- is h1. .·. ' a~·r_eement_)~'ith ·Mr: ·-Nchimbi -learned State Attorney that there is . no k.r:,owh 'l'9W which. bar ·family-~members to tes.t:1fy on a part.icU]?Sr issue·~_·,·w.tJ·at matters jn. the' Witnesses' evidence is their credi.bility ·.·_ :.- ., :. . .. . . . . .. and truthfulness· . ·- . . . ·(s~e- . EDWARD . NZABUGA . . · VR,.·· Criminal .: Appeal No. 136 oi~:20_()8, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at ~~-~ . . Mbeya, .>:(Unreported)l:/:·rherefore, ,·'. -·· ,... ·.. this complaint is baseless ·.·•..... and it is hereby dismissed. The complaint that the prosecution failed to account on the ,delay to arrest the appellant is baseless since PWl, PW2, PW3 .and PW4 testified that the appellant disappeared from the village soon after this incident. This incident was reported first to the village chairman PW4, then ·the Village Executive Officer and to police where a PF3 was· issued for PWl to go to hospital for treatment. Also, this court agrees with the Republic that the complaint that neighbours were not summoned is non-meritorious. This is 5 .. .... •:) :_.-.• .. ·. ~'- .. ·.. : . . . . ~ . . . so· be·cause~ PW3 and PW4 answered PV\/1-'s ·-aladri~ and were· . the on·e:::·~ho•: ' . . had kn_~wledge . of the in_ciderit:.h'ence . .. eligH~le wi~nes-~es. . . . ·.. . An.d "if·is :'to-the·. prosecuti.on's discretion tcf call witnesses whom th~y-·fin~. can,.p:~~~e·t~~ :~lleg·at.ions against. the accused and not. . .. . w-ha_t. the· acc·used ·fe·e1·s. ·the-- witnesses in this case were found .· · · .•· su·tti~i~n{ to··:p.rove· t_he ch~rge (See also FADHILI RAMADHAN : . <..., ··.. . . : . -·... TEMBO VR) Supra.·.. ·, _: .. ·: .' ·.. _ •.·. As. tot.he co111plaint ir;'-;relation to the· PF3, the court agrees with both. . . parties . thaf the·. same was illegally: admitted in court. . . . . . . This was. contrary to :·.::-se¢tion ·240 (3) of the Criminal Procedure . . . . -.- ... :·-·::·· ·.. · . Act, Cap. 20 Revised: Edition 2002 since the trial Magistrate did . ·.. ( .. . ·. ~ . not inform· the. appellahf of· his right to have the Medical Officer who authored the PF3 to be summoned for cross-examination. Thus, the PF3 was not good evidence and it is hereby expunged from the record. Even though the PF3 is expunged from the record but the available evidence did prove PWl 's injuries. As rightly submitted by Mr. Nchimbi the appellant himself said PWl showed old scars in court. Whereas PW4 said PWl came to his home oozing blood from her abdomen and buttocks. PW2 testified that he found PWl bleeding and had lost consciousness and PW3 evidenced that found PWl covered with khanga in her abdomen. Thus, PWl 's injuries had been proved and it was proved that it 6 . ' . fi'·" . , ··, ~ ~ 9 ,t. :_' ·"=_;._\:~::. _: ..·.----:-.· :' . ·:.~. .: • .. .; •- .;~a·s-/_t~e: appellant who. inflicted Them-. iThis ·compi~rnt :is··.equ~lfy · · · d 1s·ih:is.sed .. . . .~: ... ·... . ... . .. ·: ·. ·;_\.-·i ·:.~i.:so ~gr~~- vylt~ .Qqth-pa-~ies· tha~ the. sentence_ against ~he. ap·J:·~.H~nt·._.Js -·:~-a~_if~it•iy<: .◊n:-·. th,e high.er side and illegal. Tt1e . ·.. .., . . .. .. . ..... ,. m.a~:frrH.Jnji"p_·lJ:ni_sh:ment provided for the charged offence is. seven . ·... ·:,' . . • -'r. . . . ., . .. . . . . . . '._ . .: :·. , ·: . .:.... years irr,,prisonrrient. However, interms· of section 170 (1) (a) a_nd·:>,· -. .:-: .. (2}t(~) (ii)· of the Cdm·i~al- Proce~ure. A~t Cap. 20. Revi:sed -~oo·i _, _ ·. the tri~I Magistrate .cou-id· ·only· have s~ntenced the: a"pp"eHant tc,:. : :·-· impri~onnie~t. of not· ~ore·.::tti·~-n . twelve months. More than. that . he .- .. ... .: . ought to. ·. have . . sent . t_he . record to this court ·. . · .. for confirmation· of the \ sentence :by·.:a· . Judge·~--··t=aifure .. . . .· . . . -. to adhere tb this ·law, this sentence •' against the -~appeil~ne·of: eigh:t years imprisonment with corporal punishmen(of twelve.·str:.okes·of the cane if illegal and it is hereby set aside. In the event therefore, the period the appellant has been in custody since conviction will meet the ends of justice as to the circumstances of this case where the complainant was severely injured for no apparent reasons. Therefore, the appellant is ordered to be released from custody unless his continued incarceration is in relation to other lawful causes. It is so held. 7 ' __---- w1l ·. ;y}ft---- =< > ,., ·. . . I I : •:, •·· · . , · (M. A. KWARIKO) :~·. . . . ... : . ·.· .'JUDGE './·.· •·.·:::-:·._:;·._·. .·oi19.12Q11 . ..... •. :.· . . . . .. ~ . Co1i~t: ~- Right ·of Appeal_ fu'r1y·._ex·p1ained . . .. · . .,.. . . . CM~~--:~lxKO) JUDGE 07/9/2011.·' ·. ... .: .. . .... :·· ..... AT DODOMA ·.:';' ·, 07/9/2011~ Appellant: Present. For Respondent: Mr. Nchimbi State Attorney. C/c: Ms. Komba. //·/~cc:···:~~e~O) l . t ·.;i·,.. · .·, \<,\11, ,,:.,j~ JUDGE ., .. V.·'... ,·· ~-~:. · · ·. :. /J.i~'i'.l =-=--=-=:.= \· ,• ,.· · . · ;:. ::/. ?.:i!'7 /9/2011 \.,_ .· . /'t'I •'-'~,,;,;s'..'.;,o,.;,.Lt;~;;.;.·:~-'.;;f/' • 8