20120517 TZCA Arusha

,J l IN THE··COURT OF :APPEAL OF "tANZANlA ·,ATARUSHA· ccoRAM~ ,NSEKt:LA. J,A.; LUANDA,,J.-A.,.And MASSAil·, J,A,l .· . CRIMINALAPPEAI. NO. 57 OF 2810. -MOH'AMED ·SA'l'NY:EYE, llfi•····}..........-•.• ,·11••·················••.•···•• .................... -AP.P."ELL.ANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC·...............................................................- RESPONO.ENT (Appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha) (Mmilla, J,) dated the 30 th day of October; 2009 · in Criminal Appeal No. ·94:of 200s JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 3 & 17 May 20.12 LUANDA, J.A.: In the District Court of Arusha at Arusha, the above named appellant was charged with rape and unnatural offence contrary to sections 130(1) (2), 131(1) and 154 of the Penal Code; Cap. 1·6 RE. 2002. He was. ·Convicted as .charged ~nd sentenced, .as :follows,, we reproduce: "This court orders that an accused has to setve the imprisonment of JO years in jail and pay the fine atthe tune of 100~000/= to an a"c_qused upon the completion of the ,. 2. s_e_nteoce1 :the' punlshJ'JielJ,t ,.o'hwhirfb .:~ill ruo · tencurten.tly :fer both; cot/i'ts,,J Whatever th.e r.nea(".\ing . or it th~•,,app'ellarit was. aggriev;etfby· the . finding . .. of the . .. trial Di$tdct Court (Mkarna; . - RM), ·he qppeaied . ' to the . .·; High court of Tanzaf:'lia, Arusha •Registry. The High Court dismi.Sse.d his appeal and to ,our surprise Jt co~firmed the "sentenoe" imposed ,by the trial district tourt .. Dissat,i$fied by thc1t decision, .hence tl1is seco.hd appeaL The ~ppellant h~s raised fbur :Qrolinds in his memorandum of pppeaL And when.the. ;appee:il w~,s cal!ed.,q't'il fo,~ heifirin.g;,the appe,tlant added ,one ground. So, tile appe'll 9nt ft;} tqtal ra,ised .five ,.grounds. The first is that the. ev.il:lence of PW2 Angela f:3enard 1 the complainant was not cred,ible; secondly. the evidence of PW2 contradicts that of PW4 WP 2612 'DC Winfritja; thirdly the evidenoe ·Of PW1 'Benard Aloyce, the father of the comp.lain·ant, PW3 Dr Hassan 'Kivuyo who attended the complainant and PW4,. were not 1 analyzed and ·scrutinized properly; .fourthly bis evideriqe that he was not in good' terms with the father of the complainant was not considered, and .' ' 3 :lastly, the one added, is to :the :effect,:that the v:oite dlr~ ,~xam,11~tjon . taken before PW2 gave her ~~iden~e ,;as:J1otpr:operly cor,dµct(=d. ·: .. •,_ - In thl$ :appeal; the ~ppellantappeared .:in. ~e~soni unrepre$ented ,and so he fended himself: The ·respondent/:f<ept:Jblic had: the. services. of Ms. IrnmacuJata Bclrizi lec:Jrned S~nior State Attorney. At first Ms; Banzi supported the ·finding of the lower: C!Ourts. However; on reflection, she decilne.¢ to dp so in pa:rti~plar :the non c<'.;>mpliance of section 127(2) of the ·Evidence Act, cap, $ RE-2002 .. She submitted that once the evidence of PW2 'is discarded, the prosecutkm case has no leg to stand .. The ·.c!ppeal sl:lould;b,$.ailowed, Briefly the prosecutiorr case :as found/credible by .lower courts was that one day when PWl returned ,home from work. his Wife. complain~o to hir.i, ab◊Ut th~ ,late ~i'rrryal :(?f PW2 fron, SC!iOC?l and 'h~r clothes were smeared with human faeces and'. urine. Upon .inquiry, PW2 told him that she had .cl stomqch.up set PW2 was ;punWhed. Three days later; PWl saw her'daughter PW2 unable to contsroi herself-'fae~ was. coming ,out. She was rusheq to hosp\tal where. she was attenqed by PW3. Dr, H~ssc;3n (PW3). '?~VI br,u!~~s :,on P\f\!J 's ,.._ 4 vag!h_a;,. sn)ell . df 'iJGi11e, syphynpt~r·- musti~~ lq9§e. ~·nd :l;>rµI~es ~rourrld . the anal area., 'fhe-doctor -opir:ieo thatthe··above tnentioned are'c!'s .· ' were penetrated by force. As to w:hat:objeo: penetrateo .on those ctreas, .it ls the version of PW2 the key witness who said it was the appellant who did. it. • It is the evidence :of PW2 that one da~ when she Wa$ retuming .from school, ,she met the appenaot :at a·:pl~cei called Soweto .. , Sne Yfq.S taken to unfinished ho1Jse. where she saki tne ,a.ppeHa·nt ''Penetrated her" at the "back and front." By what m~ns,. tne recor~f is silent; Ann this is the .evidence which the ,appellant complai'r:ied that her evidence was not taken in compliance with-section 127(2) of the Evidence Act~ Cap. 6. By necessary implicatiori1 the appellant is saying the evidence. of PW2 h?s no evidential value. . . . The Courts: :below wer~ s(!tisfied th 9t · the complainant vva$ raped; and the one.vvbo.did it is the appellar;it. We will first discuss tne question or non· compH~nce of s. 127(2) of the Evidence Act and lf need· be proceed with other grounds. We are much: alive to a well settled :prir;1qple of ,law that ---····--·-········•"········-··-··•···.. ········ 5. th is being a second appeal ~enerally we are precluded 'from 1 interfering with the concurrent findings of fact unless it. is .shown there !S misdirection or nbn direction. (See OPP v Jaffari Mfaume Kawawa {1981] TLR 149; Salum Mhando v R [1993] TLR 170) In this case, the ·evidence of PW.2 is crucial to show who. inserted an object on• her vagina and anus. But the record shows that PW2 was 10 years of age. Generally all witnesses in criminal matters are competent to testify on oath or affirmation unless the court considers that they are incapable of understanding the question put to them or of giv1ng rational answer to those questions by reason oftender age; extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind or any ot!Jer similar cause. However, in case of a child of tender age (fourteen years and below under section 127(5) of the Evidence Act) he can testify either on oath or affirmation or not on oath or affirmation. In other words he is also permitted to give unsworn evidence. In tase of unsworn evidence the procedure laid down under section 127(2) of the Evidence :Act, Cap. 6 RE 2002 niius.t be ,tJomJ!).lied with. :So, beft;>re'the evidence of a child' of tende't-,age 'is··sRen, =th~ procedure laid down· under s. 127(2) of the Evidence. Act must be .fdlldwed .to ascertain · whetnei- such witness is cpmpE?tent to testify on oath or affirmation or not on ·oath or affirmc3tion, In lega.l parlance the procedure to ascertain whether a .child. of tender age is: competent to testify 'ls known as voire dire. So, 'the object .of c:ohductihg a v.olr:e dire tesLis to establish competericy of a child.Whether he i5 cappbJe .of-testifying .. . ., . . In case 1it is found he is not :~pable .of g"hting evid~n~e.either on. oath/affirmation.or not onoathtaffirmation~ then:hls evidence:shoold not be taken. The findings on these points must be r¢coroed on the· case record . Section 127(2) of the Evid~n<::e Act, Cpp~ 6 RE. 20oz provides:- 127 (2) Where·· in any criminal cause or matter :a child oftender -age cal.led as a witness· does not,. in . the opinion of the. court, . 1:rnd~rstand . the ryature of an gath, hi~ evidence may be ·received/tho.ugh not given upon. o,ath or . a-ffftttiafion:, if :in t~e • ·-··•··············--··-·····•--- qpinion of ~he cou_rt:, .Yfhi~h qpi~Jon·. shall b~ . rec:oroed in the proceedings~ he 1s possessed of sufficient intelligence to ju.stify the · reception of his evidence, and understands the duty of speaking the truth. in Nyasani s/o Bichana v R [19.58} EA 90 the fhen Court of Appeal for Eastern African stressed the· 'r:)_eed to comply with the above cited Section. It stated:.- 'i'lt is clearly the duty of'.the court under that section to . ascertain~ fir$t wheth~t a dilld tendered as a witness uoderstands .the nature_ of oath, ..and, if the finding on this question is itJ the /Jegatfve1 to satisfy itself that the child is possessed of stlfficient Intelligence to Justify the reception of the evidence and 1.:mderstands tbe dt1ty of speaking the truth; This i$ a condition precedent .to the proper reception of unsworn evidence · from a child,. and it should appe'$r upon the fac.e of the re¢.drd that there has beer; .a 'due compliance w,ith theSed:ion. ,) .• 8 . tn Ha$san H~'til:Ju; v :'R =cr:rrn1naJ AP.P:~a'! Nb.- '71 or totJ2· :fhe Coprt .· observed: j'i=r:om these, provlsJ'ons; it is impprtai1t for -the trial Judge or · magistrate .when the witness ./n.volved ls a child of tender f:!ge..to conduct 41 voire dir~ examinc1tiort T/:Jls is to be done in· order for the trial Ji.Jdge or magistrate to satisfy himself oi her$elf that the child understands thenatµ/:e of.oath If in the opinion · of the .trial .judge or magl5ttc1te, to .the be ·_ r~ord~d in proceeding~ the ·Chfk:Ldoes,,not andet$tana. the nature .qt an ®.th but )s PQ$Sessed of • t • • • •• : · •••. -- ·: •• suffident intelligence· and the· Witness -understands the duty qf ~pefikfng the. 'truth, .. such evidence may be received though not upon oath or. a{fitmation, ;; (See Ohahlrl AllyvR [1989] Tllt27;:'Siikiltt :v R/1967)· .. , EA 403; ,Khamis saml!e/ r R. Ctlmlnat Appeal No. 320 of 201 oCAT(anteport:ed); Ki$iri Mwita s/o .l(isiri V R jJ981] TLR 2Ul gl]d Kib;,ngeny v--R [19.59] £4 94} In a: summary form, the proc~<:11.fre :to ascer:,ta!n ,whether a :child of tender .agr= is coni-petent ,to testify i$:. aiJQIIQws.: :~ , ·.. r·. •.· ~ ·;.-::_. :. .° : ' ·.,_ -~{:· :;~~'.::·· ·/· /\=_·.:-:;_: '.'.C·.·-;:-~ ._":):-~ •..~.· ~-:-:•,;: ~ .: ·,..-•~·.•'-:/ft~/~_/:/ .· . , PROCEOW RET@ iANT:JDUT: .WHEEfib::RA , ,· .: . CHLLP·Os\fE~:tjr~~/·~~k-:t$:- 9e-~~~~~tr¥~\~~t;F,j::;:~,-;•··· •·; ·.·. . • , ·, ~· • --1 · .• . i ' •• .• ' . .._ .. ·: --:-_' ; ·:~ ·. · . .1. rtie mag1st,:~~~~J;;:~~ri~~2~j~:tb/":<,· ·.ascertain~ .•. (b) ··.1'he religlous.beliefcofthi'chil_d ···.·· . .. ... ··. ·.. ... / , ,· ·_•• . .:. (c} Whether:the chHd:undefst~Ad$ :the:hature •of oath·· ancl its. obllg~tion~j/J?~$~di: . J;~h:·.his: :~-· . . . ... ·•:• , . r~Hgiqus •cyeliefs ... · 2. Magist~ate. makes: ·i?: ,deftnit~ ~ finding _im . these .points .on tnf ca~e ir¢cordf. Jncl_udihg ·. : an ind,icatiori of th~ qv¢stib~: a?Red• ,and answers:received.. 3. I.f the. .•. court · . •IS ·. sati~~d from .-ttie> .. investig~tion th~t fhe .dhild,-~n~~~t~noi\~!= . . · rn~ture ·anci:•'.Obltgati:°.n$ of(att:o~tt\ Jht~,',cihHd' : . ,_.' may then bf= sworn:'of;affir.med-,ahd alk>y.tetj>. to give .eyid~nce.on •o 9th. •. J ~ _.' 4;.. Itthe. :.. . court . .. ·is.-:.:n6.t. .satfsfied .. -- . . . tnat.the,thiJd:• - - -- - . -' . of.·:·.. .... : _-,-" ' . . ,. . ~ .. ..... .. .. - .tenclers ...age • urkler~hd;).thl':.h~tui:e:.--.and',.:_; e;_. ,.·•. ·. obugatio~s -~t ··an. ~~th J~~ ·~m,;tiQ{~,)~;•:,tli~-- '· .: . . . I • ,,•' • • ✓ •• • TO. child; ,tq :he swo.m ,or ;:lffirnied :~nd' :will note this oh the case tecord: 1. If the court finds. that the child does not understand' the nature: of an oath, it must· before alloWi'ng the child to give evidence determine through questioning the child tw<> :thing~:- (~) That the child 'is pqssessed of s.ufficient intelligence to Justify the• reception of the evidence; AND (~) That the child understands the ,duty of -speaking the truth. Again the findings of each point must be recorded on the record. '.C. IN CASE TtlEC.HIJ,.D IS INCAPABLE TO MEET Tfli ABOVE TWO PQI~TS {P. ~ BJ Court ·show Id J nditate ,on the record. an'd the . ' - '· ... . . . chilcl shoul.d not give-eyiqen~, In the instant case1 :before PW2 gave evidence( the trial :court according to the record shows thus: PW2 An.9ela Benard; 10, I am a pupil ,at Ka!oleni, Std JII Christian: • i VOIRE,DilRE•·tE$f Court: Do you •l<now;,c;;o·d ·.· PW2: He is on top (Moin~uhi) Co.urt: · D.6 you khow :the tr;uth ·.· PWZ: l~onit remember, ..but it is saying the truth not a'false statement. Court: Who ls: the head'teacher. PW2: Kaaya O.rder: I am satisfied thatan accused {Sic) is intelligent enough to testify ,before :this court: Then PW2 gave her evidence.· The; above extract faUs short of a voire dire.. It is crystal. dear th~t Jh~ tr'.i'a'I C0"1rt.· did. not ~omply ·. with the procedure.:of conductJng<V0ir:e dire test. tn the absence of an :inquiry and a finding that the child understands tihe :n?ture of an oath. or he is posse$Sed of suff.ident intelligence and understands the duty of speaking the truth~ it cannot be said that the child was a co:rppetent Witness; The: ·evidence of :P'f/2 is of no evider:itial value. Since the trial court did not comply with the mandatory provision of Section 127{2) of the Evidence Act, the evidence of PW2 wa;. wrongly admitted '.ar:id acted upon. The 12 • same is e><pungt~d frorn the rce;ord. · And' since tbe,··evid~hce pf PW2 is <:ruci21l in th}s case, ·the ~onvittion oannot :stand:: ··we entirely a:gree. With Ms. B~nzi. Tiris :ground· alone is enough to dispose of the appeal; we see no need of ,discussing the other grounds. Before we make concluding remarks, we: Wjsh. t9 make one observation. · the trial. court recorded tile evidence. by way of question and answer form, That wa$ not proper. Tb<= rn~nner of . recording evidence before a magistrate is provio(:!G under .section 0 210(1) (b) of the Criminal: Procedure Act, Cap, 20. The section reads: 210 (1) In. ttials, other tha11 tria:1s under section 213, ~Y or before a mag·istrate., the evidehce of the witnesses. shall . be recorded in the fo!Jowihg man,ner., (c) the evidence shall not ,ordinarily .pe takef'l down in the form of question and answer but, -subject to subseCJt:jon (2), Jtr the form of a. narrative. · 13 We wr:ge rnc1gi$tr:at~s to foilo:w tne ·1a,w gqverntng.ttile :cohdµd of Ii criminal trials $0 iis· to prevent qr at :ieas:t to ·l)lfnirrilz~ the ct-ra-nces. of a miscarr,iage e>f justice. In the event and for the reasons stated above, ,We allow the appeal,. quash the .cor;ivlction and set aside the ''sentenqe". The. . . . - . . appella·nt is to be :released from prison :forthwith unl~ss otherwise lawfully detained. Order accordingly; ,DATED at ARUSHA this 8 th day of May, 2012. H. R.. NSE-KELA JUSTICE OF APPEAL B. M. LUANDA JUSTIC~ OF APPEA~ O• ·•· .·R. E.At: