republic vs thabit salehe selemani 2013 tzhc 2106 8 march 2013

IN THE RM'S COURT OF TANGA AT TANGA (EXTENDED JURISDICTION) P.C. MKEHA - SRM CRIMINAL SESSIONS NO. 1 OF 2013 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS THABIT SALEHE @ SELEMANI DATE OF LAST ORDER: 26/02/2013 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 08/03/2013 JUDGEMENT The information filed against the accused person, Thabit s/o Salehe alias Seleman is that, on or about the 8th day of February, 2008 at about 07:00 hours at Chanika/ Kofi village in Handeni District of Tanga Region, he murdered one Rehema d/o Rashidi c/s 196 of the Penal code. When the charge was fully read over to the accused, he protested his innocence. It was agreed at the preliminary hearing of this case that the deceased, Rehema d/o Rashidi, who, incidentally, was the accused person's own wife, is dead. She died due to acute loss of blood caused by multiple cut wounds on the neck, head and both forearms. Some of those cut wounds were followed by fractures. To be specific, the cut wounds on the forearms were open fractures. Accordingly, I find these facts established. The accused likewise conceded that, he was arrested on the 9th day of February, 2008 and subsequently charged for the death of the deceased. Exhibit P.l, shows that the deceased was an adult. She had multiple cut wounds on the neck, head and both forearms. Without prejudice, the injuries sound ghastly. It is perhaps necessary at this stage to make brief outline of the evidence in this case. As aforesaid, the deceased was the accused's own wife. The accused, a peasant, married the deceased in 2004. They had been blessed to get two children. Unfortunately, one child died. The other one survived. Before marrying, the accused lived inside his father's house. The accused's father had four wives, the accused's mother being one of them. The accused's mother however, got divorced in 1993. PW3 Hadija Waziri was one of the four wives of the accused's father. She was therefore the accused's step mother. She was still living with the accused's father on 08/02/2008 when the deceased died. She was also still living with the accused's father on 19/02/2013 when she testified before this court. PW2 on the other hand, was the accused's sister-in-law. PW2 was the wife of the accused's brother one, Daudi Lugendo. She was still living with the accused's brother on 19/02/2013 when she testified before this court. Because of marriage convenience, the accused, in 2004, shifted from his father's house to his own house (accused's). Therefore, at the time relevant to this case, the accused and the deceased were living in their own house however, not far from his father's house. The accused's brother, PW2's husband, had also built a house not far from the accused's house. The two children, the accused and his brother, built their houses on their father's compound. The distance between the accused's house and that of his brother in which PW2 lived, was variously described as five and seven paces. These descriptions were given by PW2 and PW4. The accused, PW2 and PW3 lived at the same village, hamlet and compound. The three had lived together for years, before the 8th day of February, 2008. The above statement of facts is obtainable from the testimonies of PW2, PW3 and DW1. There can be no doubt that the star witness for the Prosecution in this case is Mwajuma Mohamed (PW2). Mwajuma told the court that on the 8th day of February, 2008 in the morning, at about 07:00 hours heard an alarm from the accused's house. The deceased was saying: Niachie! Niachie! These words can literally be interpreted as "Release me!" "Release me!" Mwajuma moved to the accused's house in answer to the deceased's alarm. She unfortunately found the door closed. She called the house occupants in vain. Mwajuma picked a heavy wooden piece which she used to break the door. Upon breaking the door, Mwajuma found the accused holding the deceased with one hand and a matchet in the other hand. The deceased was by then bleeding from her neck and both forearms. That is when Mwajuma advised the deceased to get out of the house 4 as the door was now open. The deceased took heed of that advice and attempted running. As the deceased was running, the accused chased her and continued attacking her from behind using the said matchet. Before she went far, the deceased stumbled and fell down. That was not all; the accused cut the deceased on her neck using the matchet. As the deceased had fallen down, lying facing the sky, the accused took the matchet and placed it on top to the deceased's stomach. The accused then ran away. Mwajuma raised an alarm. Within a very short period of time, Rehema Rashid died. In response to Mwajuma's alarm, Hadija Waziri arrived at the scene of the incident. Substantially, that is the evidence of PW2. Hadija Waziri testified as PW3. Although she was the first person to arrive at the scene in answer to Mwajuma's alarm, it was late for her to render any aid to Rehema Rashid. As PW3 arrived at the scene of the incident, the deceased had already died. However, PW3 told this court that, while moving to the scene of the incident, saw the accused vanishing into the bush, but before entering the bush, at a distance of about 70 metres from where PW3 stood to the place 5 where the accused had reached while running. Just as it was the case to PW2, PW3 had lived with the accused for years before that day. Following information he had received on 08/02/2008, (PW1) Abedi Salimu, arrested the accused on 09/02/2008. PW1 was a resident of Kwedibago village, a village bordering the accused's village, Chanika Kofi. PW1 had received information that the accused, whom he knew, had killed his wife. Therefore, when PW1 saw the accused passing within his street, informed others. It was on 09/02/2008 at about 07:00 am. When the accused saw PW1 and other persons, the former started running. PW1 and his colleagues chased the accused. PW1 managed to apprehend the accused at a distance of about 40 paces. After apprehending the accused, they took him at Kwediboma village office and later on at Kabuku Police station. PW1 managed to identify the accused in court. No. E.2571 D/CPL Evarist appeared before this court as PW4. He happened to be a police officer to whom information regarding the 6 deceased's death was supplied. That was on 08/02/2008 during noon hours. He went at the scene of the incident. He described the area of residence of the accused, PW2 and PW3. According to him, the three persons resided on one compound though in different houses. At the scene of the incident, PW4 found the deceased's body which had injuries on different parts of her body. He could recall the injuries he noticed on the neck, both forearms and shoulders. He also found the deceased lying facing upwards. He also found a matchet on top of the deceased's stomach. The matchet had some blood. The witness tendered the said matchet as exh. P2. The witness further told this court that, he traced blood stains from the place where the body of the deceased lied to the accused's house. He received information regarding the accused's arrest the next day. The witness further told this court that it was not possible to see blood on the matchet in 2013 while the event happened in 2008. PW4 also stated that, when the accused was arrested, he put on long shorts and a T-shirt. PW2 had also told this court that, the accused worn a T-shirt and shorts when he committed the offence. 7 In his defence, the accused recalled that on 8th February, 2008 he got up early in the morning. He left his wife at home at about 06:00 a.m. when he went to his farm. Later on the same day, the accused received information that his wife had died. . According to the accused, he was arrested at Kwedizinga village on 08/02/2008 it being alleged that he had killed his wife. When the accused asked those who effected his arrest to take him back home to see whether his wife had really died, they refused. The accused stated that, he was then taken at Boka village office where he spent a night. The accused says, he was taken to Kabuku Police Station the next day. It will be recalled that, it was the prosecution's story that the accused killed his wife on 08/02/2008 at about 07:00 a.m. Now the accused puts up a defence that he was not at Chanika Kofi village during that time as he had left his home since 06.00 am for farm activities. In other words, the accused is telling the court'that, he was not at the place of incident when the deceased was killed. The accused raises a defence of alibi. The accused also referred to hostility which existed between him and PW2 on one hand and PW3 on the other hand. In their final addresses to the court the Learned State Attorney, Mr. Kibwana submitted that the prosecution had managed to prove occurrence of death which was neither natural, nor, accidental through the testimony of PW2. The Learned State Attorney added that, the testimony of PW2 was corroborated by the testimony of PW3. The two witnesses are in one way or another related to the accused hence the two witnesses had no reason of speaking lies against the accused. The Learned State Attorney added that, PW4 too had proved the fact that there was a death which was not natural. He further submitted that, the Report on Post Mortem also proved the fact that, the death was not natural. According to the Learned State Attorney, the three witnesses got time to see the body of the deceased. The body had injuries to the neck, head and both forearms. It was the Learned State Attorney's submission that the accused had an intention of killing the deceased. In view of the Learned State Attorney, it appears that there was no any kind of quarrel or fight 9 between the accused and the deceased. He pointed to the testimony ♦ of PW2, the eye witness. The Learned State Attorney told this court that, PW2 had heard the deceased lamenting: Niachie mimi! (Release me). In view of the Learned State Attorney, the deceased's statement indicates that, the deceased had been held or was being assaulted and that there was no fight. Upon PW2 opening the door found the accused holding the deceased with one hand and a panga/matchet in the other hand. Even when the deceased got time to run away, the accused chased her and proceeded attacking her from behind. In view of the Learned State Attorney, that shows that the accused had aimed at killing the deceased or injuring her. In view of the Learned State Attorney, malice aforethought is even vivid when one considers the weapon which the accused was using to assault the deceased. PW2, PW3 and PW4 had testified about the weapon used i.e. a matchet/bush knife. The Learned State Attorney went on to submit that, the parts of the deceased's body at which the accused assaulted the deceased indicate that, the accused aimed at killing the deceased. The assaulted parts of the deceased's body included the neck and head which are considered to be the most 10 vulnerable parts of a human body. The Learned State Attorney further submitted that, malice aforethought is equally vivid through the accused's continuous attack of the deceased. He referred this court to the testimony of PW2 who is on record to have told this court that, when she broken the door, found the deceased bleeding from her neck and both forearms. When the deceased ran away, the attack continued being done by the accused who was chasing the deceased from behind. Even when the deceased fell down, still the accused cut her onto her neck using the matchet. The accused ran away after all these events, said the Learned State Attorney. The Learned State Attorney referred this court to the case of Moses Michael alias Tall v. Republic [1994] TLR 195. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that, malice aforethought may be inferred from the amount of force which an offender employs in inflicting fatal injury. It was further held in that case that, the conduct of the accused may be indicative of malice aforethought as it was in that case where the appellant was persistent in beating the deceased for a long time and prevented interventions by persons who wanted to help the deceased. n It was also the Learned State Attorney's submission that, it was the accused and nobody else who caused the unnatural death of the deceased. On this aspect, it was the learned State Attorney's submission that, there was no problem in identifying the accused person. He submitted that, the event happened at about 07:00 am in the morning. PW2 and PW3, being part of the accused's family were persons knowing the accused for a long time before the event. PW2 went to the extent of identifying clothes worn by the accused at the time of committing the offence i.e. shorts and a T-shirt. Mr. Kibwana stated that, PW4 had corroborated that testimony by pointing to the same clothes to be the very clothes the accused was found wearing when he was arrested on 09/02/2008. Mr. Kibwana went on to tell this court the way PW2 identified the accused. He said that, when PW2 opened the door became nearer to the accused and managed to identify him. PW2 advised the deceased to run away which the deceased did. The two, i.e. the accused and the deceased got out of the house; once again PW2 identified the accused, her brother-in-law whom she knew before. Mr. Kibwana for the Republic went on to 12 submit that PW3 corroborated the testimony of PW2 on identification. According to Mr. Kibwana, a distance of 70 metres is not long enough to the extent of disenabling PW3 to identify a person she had lived with for years especially when the particular identification is being done during day time at about 07:00 am in the morning. The event happened within Handeni District in Tanga Region. The Learned State Attorney then referred this court to the decision in Waziri Amani v. Republic (1980) TRL 250 where it was held that, time for which the witnesses had the accused under observation, distance at which the two stood each other, whether it was day or night and whether the witness knew the accused before are matters to be considered. In view of the Learned State Attorney, if one considers all those factors in relation to prosecution witnesses particularly PW2 and PW3 and the accused, the only inevitable conclusion is that, the accused was perfectly and properly identified by PW2 and PW3. The Learned State Attorney then referred to the version of the accused who told this court that he was arrested on 08/02/2008. According to Mr. Kibwana, the accused's story was incorrect. Mr. Kibwana referred this court to the record on preliminary hearing whereby the 13 accused had admitted to have been arrested on 09/02/2008. The Learned State Attorney told this court that, the accused had not raised that question before the prosecution witnesses. The Learned State Attorney then drawn the attention of this court to the provisions of section 194 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. He then reminded this court that, the accused is being represented by a learned advocate who supposedly knows the law on alibi. Mr. Kibwana urged this court to accord no weight to the defence of alibi as raised by the accused. He, therefore, urged the court to find the accused guilty as charged. The Learned Counsel for the accused, Mr. Mlawa, on the other hand submitted that the court should not believe the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 because of hostility that existed between the two witnesses and the accused. The Learned defence counsel reminded this court of what the accused had formerly told this court about the two witnesses. He said, while PW2 had stolen some chicken eggs from the accused's house, it was because of PW3 that the accused's mother got divorced. The Learned defence counsel urged this court 14 to disbelieve the testimonies of PW1 and PW4 as neither of them had witnessed the event. The Learned defence Counsel further urged this court not to believe the evidence of PW2 for want of corroboration. He was also of the view that there is no sufficient circumstantial evidence to lead to the conviction of the accused. The defence has again raised a question that there has been a delay in prosecuting the instant accused person. In view of the learned defence counsel, that should affect the prosecution's case. The defence counsel is of the view that, as a result of cross examination to PW2 and PW3, the prosecution case was discredited. The defence counsel says that there are discrepancies left without answers by the prosecution case. It will be recalled that, upon being cross examined by the defence counsel PW2 had admitted the fact that she really once stolen some chicken eggs from the accused's house. When it appeared that the testimony of PW3 differed with her statement at the police station, PW3 maintained that, what she told this court was correct. She insisted that, she loved Thabit and all what she had stated in court was nothing but truth. The Learned defence Counsel further submitted that, it was impossible that the accused killed the 15 deceased especially if one considers the fact that, the clothes of the * accused were found clean with no blood stains whatsoever. The Learned defence counsel therefore, urged the court to accept the accused's version and thereby find him not guilty. I summed up the case to the assessors. I told them what is the legal position regarding the defence of alibi. I also told them that there is no legal requirement that the evidence of PW2 be corroborated and further that they should not hesitate to act on it if and only if, they were fully satisfied that PW2 told us nothing but the truth. I also reminded them that the case before us rests on direct oral evidence of an eye witness and not on circumstantial evidence. All the assessors clearly accepted Mwajuma (PW2) as an honest and truthful witness. They rejected the accused's story in his defence and, by their unanimous conclusion; they found that the accused's defence did not suffice to raise any reasonable doubt to the prosecution case. The assessors advised that the charge against the accused has fully and sufficiently been established. The turn is now mine to consider 16 the evidence, find out which facts have been established, apply the law to them and come to a decision in this case. The Learned defence counsel has drawn this court's attention to the fact that, it is unsafe to base the conviction of the accused to the uncorroborated testimony of PW2. I respectfully disagree. There is no rule of law to the effect that a direct oral evidence of an eye witness should not be relied upon unless corroborated. PW2 was an eye witness, who witnessed the incident during day time, at almost zero distance, the killing being perpetuated by the accused person, her brother-in- law, whom she knew for years. Her evidence is entitled to credence. The submission of the learned defence counsel carries weight only when taken together with the defence of the accused which attempted to indicate that, there existed hostility between the accused and PW2 on one hand and PW3 on the other hand. That is only then when this court requires corroboration of the testimony of PW2. And, as a matter of fact, the testimony of PW2 is corroborated 17 by medical evidence. PW2 had testified that, upon breaking the door, found the deceased bleeding on the neck and both forearms. When the deceased attempted to run away, the accused chased her and continued attacking her from behind. And further that, when the deceased fell down, the accused cut her on the neck using a matchet. The Report on Post Mortem corroborates the testimony of PW2 when it states that the deceased died due to acute loss of blood caused by multiple cut wounds on the neck, head and both forearms. Again PW4 corroborated the testimony of PW2 when he said that, he could recall the injuries he noticed on the body of the deceased on the neck, both forearms and shoulders. Merely because a witness happens to be a person who at one particular time quarreled with the accused does not in itself entitle the court to discard evidence of that witness. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. I have taken the requisite caution by testing the testimony of PW2 against the contents of the Report on Post Mortem Examination and the testimony of PW4. I have found the testimony of PW2 to be credible and reliable. In his defence, the accused told this court that he was not at Chanika Kofi village at the time when the deceased was killed i.e. on 08/02/2008 at about 07:00 am. The accused stated that, he had left his home the very day but earlier in the morning at about 06:00 am for farm activities. The Learned State Attorney, Mr. Kibwana, has urged this court to attach no weight to that defence of alibi for want of requisite notice as per section 194 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. He reminded this court, that the accused is enjoying legal services of Mr. Mlawa, learned advocate who supposedly knows the law. Before raising the defence of alibi, the accused, who is truly represented, did not give notice required under section 194 (4) of he Criminal Procedure Act that he intended to raise the defence of alibi. It can only be said that, the said defence was raised as an after thought. The same is rejected. In his attempt to persuade this court to believe his story, the accused stated that he was arrested on 08/02/2008 which was not true. The accused had admitted on preliminary hearing date that he was arrested on 09/02/2008 and that fact is deemed to have been proved by the prosecution in terms 19 of section 192 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. There is also evidence of PW2 and PW3 who saw the accused at Chanika Kofi village at the time of the incident. That too, entitles this court to reject the evidence of alibi in toto. It was also the submission from the learned defence counsel that, as a result of cross examination, the prosecution case suffers from a number of discrepancies. Indeed, when PW2 was cross examined, conceded to the fact that she once stolen some chicken eggs from the accused's house. The accused stated that, when he caught the witness (PW2) for stealing, there developed enemity between them. Again, when PW3 was cross-examined, she admitted the fact that, she is married to the accused's father. The accused stated that, PW3 had engineered divorce to his mother hence the two were not in good terms. I have already demonstrated that PW2 was not enemical towards the accused while in the witness box. What PW2 told this court got support from the medical evidence and the testimony of PW4. As to 20 4 the testimony of PW3, she is on record to have told this court that she saw the accused vanishing into the bush, but before entering the bush, running from the scene of incident. It was at a distance of about 70 paces from where the accused reached while running to where PW3 stood as she was moving to the scene of incident in answer to PW2's alarm. This witness too, being part of the accused's family, the two having lived together for years, knew the accused properly. It was during day time at about 07:00 hours. When the witness was subjected to vigorous cross examination by the learned defence counsel, the witness maintained that, she loved Thabit, she was truthful that, she saw Thabit Salehe (the accused) running into the bush. I find no good reason to fault the identification of the accused person by his mother whom they had lived together for years, the particular identification being done during day time at a distance of about 70 paces. The witness had every reason for defending the accused. She however elected to state what she knew to be true to the sacrifice of her marriage as she was still living with the accused's father. Why shouldn't I accept her version of story as correct? I found her to be truthful as well. 21 It also came to be revealed that the testimony of PW3 differed in substance with her statement at the police station immediately after the incident. However, one thing was common both in the statement and her testimony before this court. What appeared to be common was the fact that, PW3 saw the accused running from the scene of incident to the bush. When PW3 was asked to account for the difference, her response was that, what she stated before this court was correct. It will be recalled that PW3 gave her statement at Kabuku Police Station on the 10th day of February, 2008. It was five years since when PW3 gave her statement to the police to the time when the witness testified before this court. It is not unoften that discrepancies are noticed between earlier statements made to the police or to other persons and the actual testimonies of witnesses in court. It does not necessarily follow that, the discrepancy would ruin the prosecution case from the beginning to end. On the other hand, the circumstance will be a good reason for the court to be put on guard and sip the evidence with 22 extraordinary caution and to accept those portions of it which appear fully trustworthy. In this case, PW3 testified before this court after lapse of 60 months (5 years) since when she gave her statement at the police station. The same period had lapsed since when the incident occurred. Minor discrepancies in regard to collateral or subsidiary facts or matters of details are likely to occur even for truthful witnesses particularly when they are examined in court to testify on events which happened long before their examination. Such discrepancies should not be a ground to reject the evidence of eye witnesses like PW3 when there is general agreement and consistency in regard to the substratum of the prosecution case. Because of Mr. Mlawa's argument, I find it pertinent to make the following general observation with regard to discrepancies. A witness can not be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall details of incidence, secondly, a witness is overtaken by the events and mental faculties, thirdly, the power of observation differs from person to person and an object of movement might emboss its image on one person and might go unnoticed on the part of another, fourthly, by and large people can not accurately recall a conversation 23 and reproduce the very words used by them, fifthly, in regard to exact time of an incidence, the time duration of the occurrence, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of moment and one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in every case, sixthly, a witness cannot be. expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which took place in a rapid succession in a short span and seventhly, a witness though truthful is liable to be over awed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination of the counsel. In the instant case, I have taken the necessary caution and opted to accept and believe only that portion of PW3's testimony which appears to be fully trustworthy. And this is no other than, that part of PW3's testimony to the effect that, she saw the accused running from the scene of the incident before entering the bush. The witness maintained that story both, in her statement to the police and her testimony before this court. 24 The delay in prosecuting the instant accused person is no good ground to doubt the prosecution case. I have already demonstrated the reasons for believing the prosecution witnesses. I may add to what I have already put on record that, where the prosecution case is consistent throughout, as it is in the instant case, mere delay in prosecuting the accused can not be taken to have affected the prosecution case in terms of casting any reasonable doubt to it. In his powerful submission, Mr. Mlawa contended that, it was impossible that the accused killed the deceased especially if one considers the fact that, the clothes of the accused were found clean with no blood stain whatsoever. While admiring the ingenuity of the contention, I find myself unable to give effect to it. PW2 and PW3 had testified before this court on how they saw the accused vanishing into the bush on 08/02/2008. It was at about 7:00 am. PW1 on the other hand testified on how he apprehended the accused the following day at about 7:00 am. That was almost twenty four (24) hours after the event. While the event happened at Chanika Kofi village, the accused was apprehended at Kwedibago village. In 25 any case, what would have prevented the accused from washing his clothes and taking a shower within the period of twenty four hours? I can see nothing. Sometimes it happens, either because the stain is too insufficient or due to haematological changes and plasmatic coagulation that a serologist might fail to detect the origin of blood even where the accused was found with blood stains at the event. Will it then mean that the blood would be of some other origin even where the accused was seen by credible witnesses perpetuating the killing of a fellow human being? The effort of the Criminal Court should not be to prowl for imaginative doubts even where the same do not exist. Unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension which a judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity no benefit can be claimed by the accused. I find the blood stains story unreasonable in the circumstances of the instant case and I reject it. Mr. Mlawa also contended that there is no circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict the accused person. The Prosecution case does not depend on circumstantial evidence. It depends on direct oral evidence of PW2 and PW3 as I earlier demonstrated. I do not 26 therefore find it necessary to deal with Mr. Mlawa's argument, not uninteresting argument that there is no sufficient circumstantial evidence to lead to the conviction of the accused. At this juncture, let me pause to point out that I was impressed by the testimony of PW2 in the witness box. She remained cool, recollected and straight forward throughout her evidence including a fairly vigorous and an unsparing cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused, Mr. Mlawa. Apart from her demeanour as I earlier demonstrated I have tested her testimony against other evidence adduced in this case. I find that, her account of what transpired between the accused and the deceased has a ring of truth throughout. In the course of argument, counsel referred to a large number of authorities. Although I have considered all the cases referred to, I need only make specific reference to some of them. 27 The prosecution referred this court to the decision in the case of Moses Michael @ Tall vs. Republic (1994) TLR 195. In that case, it was held that, malice aforethought can be inferred from the amount of force employed in inflicting the fatal injuries. It was also held in that case that, conduct of the accused may be indicative of malice where the accused is persistent in beating the deceased for a longtime and prevents interventions by persons who wanted to assist the deceased. In the instant case, it is evident that the accused attacked the deceased for a longtime from inside the house to outside the house. The attack continued through the accused chasing the deceased when the latter attempted to run away through the aid of PW2 who broken the door. That was not all. Even when the deceased stumbled to the extent of falling down, the attack continued. The intervention of PW2 did not save the deceased's life. The accused persisted attacking the deceased to her death. I hold that the conducts of the accused in this case are indicative of malice aforethought. I earlier indicated that the Report on Post Mortem 28 Examination indicates that the death of the accused was unnatural, it being caused by acute loss of blood due to cut wounds on the deceased's neck, head, and both forearms. I have no reason to doubt the identification of the accused at the scene of the incident which was done by his own relatives at about 7:00 am. The identification was in conformity with what are considered to be factors for identification as per Waziri Amani vs. Rep [1980] TLR 250. All the factors are in favour of the prosecution in the instant case. I have already demonstrated how and when PW2 and PW3 identified the accused and at what distance and for how long had the witnesses lived with the accused before. I have also considered the accused's version of the story, as to what happened, as conscientiously as I could. Without beating about the bush I have found the same to be one which casts no reasonable doubt to the prosecution case.-1 accordingly reject it in toto. Judging from the nature of the attack, continued attack, mainly aimed at the neck and head, without ignoring the attack to both forearms and the weapon used, I am satisfied and I find this as a fact that, the accused intended to kill the deceased. The charge against him has thus fully and sufficiently been established. Like the assessors, I find him guilty as charged and I convict him accordingly. P.C. MKEHA - SRM (E X T J). 08/03/2013 Pros: I have no previous criminal records of the accused. Defence Counsel: Your Honour, the accused has been in remand for five years now. His stay in remand has affected him so much. He is now suffering from tuberculosis. The accused has a number of dependants depending upon him. That is all. SENTENCE The accused shall suffer death by hanging. P.C. MKEHA - SRM (E)ffJ) 08/03/2013 Court: Judgement is read in open court on t %T 7 ' March, 2013. P.C. MKEHA - SRM (E 08/03/2013 Court: Right of appeal explained. P.C. MKEHA - SRM (E 08/03/2013