republic vs bujingwa john juma kijiko 2018 tzhc 128 23 october 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF BUKOBA AT BUKOBA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 76 OF 2014 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS BUJINGWA JOHN @ JUMA KIJIKO Date o f Last Order: 19/10/2018 Date o f Judgment: 23/10/2018 JUDGMENT MALLABA, J. The accused person herein, Bujingw a John @ Jum a K ijih o, stands charged of the offence of murder, contrary to Section 196 of the Penal Code [CAP. 16 R.E.2002]. It is alleged in the Information, that, the accused person, on 21st day of May, 2014 at Bisore Village within Muleba District in Kagera Region, did murder one Fausta Geofrey. The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charges facing him and this matter had to proceed to full trial. In order to prove the case against the accused person, the prosecution brought seven witnesses. In the course of testimony by those witnesses, four exhibits were tendered for the prosecution; Page 1 of 22 which are: (i) 4 photographs of the deceased person (ii) postmortem examination report (iii) the sketch map of the scene of crime and (iv) the extra-judicial statement of the accused person. PW1 was one Geofrey Raphael. He is a resident of Muhutwe Village in Muleba District, Kagera Region. He is the father of the deceased, Fausta Geofrey. He testified that, on 21.05.2014 in morning hours, the deceased Fausta Geofrey woke up to go to school. The deceased did not come back as expected after school hours at around 4:00pm. PW1 started looking for Fausta among neighbours but that exercise proved futile. At 8:00pm, PW1 informed the Hamlet Chairman, one Odilo Mulindwa, to the effect that, his daughter was missing. The witness and the hamlet chairman continued looking for Fausta Geofrey till such time as the Hamlet Chairman proposed that they rest till the next day. Indeed they rested. On 22.05.2014, PW1 continued looking for Fausta Geofrey. In the morning of that day, the Hamlet Chairman Odilo Mulindwa raised alarm to inform Hamlet members of the of disappearance of Fausta Geofrey. After many people had gathered at around 10:00am, they decided to go to the house of one Ezekiel Jackob, who was new in the village. Having arrived there, there was nobody. The neighbours informed them that, the said Ezekiel Jackob had two houses. They therefore went to the second house. At that house, the accused person Bujingwa John was there. According to Page 2 of 22 PW1, on seeing the crowd of people, the accused person locked himself inside that house. The villagers pushed the door to the house in which the said Bujingwa John locked himself in. They opened it. That is when the accused person came out of the house. As the accused person was asked as to why he decided to lock himself inside the house, he replied that, it was because he saw too many people. PW1 further testified that, as the Hamlet Chairman, he told the accused person of the incident of a missing school girl. The accused person told them that, they should go to the other house where, as a traditional healer, he would administer some charms to facilitate tracing the said school girl. They went to the other house, to which they had gone earlier. While there, the accused person administered some charms but nothing happened. They decided to go to Bisore Kibaoni Centre at the main road. On the way, they met police from Muleba District Police Station. One of the policemen from Muleba interrogated the accused person. After interrogation, that policeman directed that they go back to the second house. On arrival at that house, the accused person Bujingwa John opened the door and led them to the bedroom, saying that, he had the girl but he has already killed her. The accused person did show where he had buried the girl. The accused person, thereafter, removed a mosquito net, then a mattress and thereafter some grasses. He then started to dig out the ground. As a result of the digging, the body of the deceased Fausta Geofrey dressed in school uniform was recovered. The body recovered had its left hand amputated, both ears had Page 3 of 22 been cut as well as her private parts removed. PW1 added that, there were two cut wounds at the back of the deceased. In another room in the same house, the accused person did show the amputated hand of the deceased. It had some flesh in its arm and was being grilled on traditional cooking stones (mafiga). One Lameck Deus testified as PW2. At the time of testifying, he was a standard five pupil at Kitunga Primary School. Being of the age below 14 years, a voire dire test was conducted and the witness found capable of understanding and giving rational answers and also capable to understand the difference between truth and lie. The witness was accordingly sworn and stated that, at the material time, he was a school and class mate of the deceased person. On 21.05.2014 in the morning, on his way to school, he met the deceased Fausta Geofrey and together with others, they were set going to school together. On the way, they passed through where the accused person lived. The accused person called them, offering to give them sweets. They all ran away except for the deceased Fausta Geofrey, who went to the accused person to pick the promised sweets. The deceased went into the house and the accused person told PW2 and the other pupils to wait for the deceased. They waited for some time but Fausta Geofrey did not come out of the house. They decided to leave for school. Fausta was not seen at all at the school that day. On the next day, Fausta’s mother went to the school to inquire on the whereabouts of her daughter. That is when PW2 disclosed that, as they were going to school the previous day, Fausta was called to pick sweets at one of Page 4 of 22 the houses on the way. He testified that, the teacher on duty asked him to go and show the person who called them to pick sweets. They went to the place and found many people gathered. PW2 pointed at the accused person to be the one who called Fausta Geofrey to pick sweets. In cross examination, PW2 testified that, he knew the accused person before the incident and that he failed to report the incident because the parents of Fausta did not inquire. Another witness was Odilo Mlindwa. He testified as PW3. In his testimony, he stated that, in 2014, he was the Hamlet Chairman of Ibanda and at the same time he was an acting Chairman of Mushonde Hamlet. On 21.05.2014 at night hours, he received a phone call from Geofrey Raphael (PW1), informing him that, his daughter Fausta Godfrey went to school in the morning but did not return back home. He went to P W l’s home. The witness met PW1 on the way. The two went to inquire on the whereabouts of Fausta Geofrey at neighbours. After some time, they decided to have a rest, agreeing to continue with the inquiry on the next morning. On the next morning, they raised alarm by use of drum beating and people gathered. At the gathering, the witness announced that the daughter of PW1 called Fausta Geofrey was missing. After the announcement, one Yasin Abas informed them that, there was a newcomer in the village, whose whereabouts were unknown and that, he could be responsible with the incident. By that time, the wife of Geofrey Raphael had already gone to the deceased’s school to inquire on the whereabouts of the deceased. Page 5 of 22 The witness went on testifying that, they decided to go to the house of Kijiko but the said Kijiko was not there. With the Village Executive Officer, Ward Executive Officer of Muhutwe, the OCS and other people, they went to the Mushonde Hamlet where they had been told that, the accused person had been seen there. They went here but the accused was not there. They then went to Ibanda Hamlet to a house which was said to belong to one Anita Amos. They found the accused person outside that house. However, on seeing them, the accused person closed himself inside the house. They forced the door open. While there, one pupil named Lameck arrived. They conducted some sort of an identification parade. The said pupil pointed at the accused person as being the person who called them the previous day and to whose house the deceased entered. The accused person then said that, the school girl was no longer alive as he had killed and buried her. PW3 and others, to wit, Geofrey Raphael, the Hamlet Chairman, the Village Executive Officer Hassan Nguza, the Ward Executive Officer Wilson Mutalemwa and some policemen from Muleba went into the house, where the accused person removed a mosquito net, a mattress and some grasses and then started digging the ground in his bedroom. As a result, the body of the deceased was retrieved with its left hand amputated. Also, two ears were cut off, private parts removed and had two wounds at the back of her shoulders. As the accused person was asked where the hand was, he replied that, it was on the traditional cooking stones and he led them to a next room, where they found the hand and some flesh being grilled. As he was Page 6 of 22 asked as to why he had done that, he replied that, he was a traditional healer and aimed to use those body parts as traditional charms for people wishing to be rich. PW3 testified further that, he knew Kijiko before the incident as he was taken to him to be introduced at his Hamlet Office about one or two months before the date of the incident. Dr. Leontin Rwamulaza testified as PW4. He stated that, he is a medical doctor. On 22.05.2014, he was the District Medical Officer of Muleba District. On that date, he conducted a post mortem examination of the body of a girl, Fausta Geofrey, who had been killed. The examination was in the presence of the father of the deceased and of a policeman from Muleba District. He testified that, there was a clerical error on the date, that is, instead of writing 22.05.2014 he wrote 21.05.2014. He went on testifying that, on the body of the deceased, the left hand had been amputated, two ears cut off, private parts removed together with the uterus while her two back muscles had also been chopped off. He tendered as exhibit, the post mortem examination report, which was admitted in court as exhibit P2. Another witness was D4079/SGT Apolinary, who testified as PW5. He is a police officer and that, in 2014, he was the OCS of Muhutwe Police Post. On 22.05.2014, he was at his working station at Muhutwe Police Post when one Wilson Charles Mtalemwa, a Ward Executive Officer, informed him that, the Chairman of Ibanda Hamlet, one Odilo Mlindwa had informed him over a mobile phone Page 7 of 22 call that, a daughter of Geofrey Raphael was missing since the previous day. The incident occurred at the boundary of Mushonde and Ibanda Hamlets. He went to the place of incident and on arrival, he saw many people and by that time, the Hamlet Chairman, Odilo Mlindwa, had already conducted an identification parade, to identify a suspect who was alleged to have called the daughter of Geofrey Raphael into his house the previous day. He was informed that, two pupils, namely Lameck Deus and Lucia Vicent, had identified the accused persons as being the one who had called the missing girl. He arrested the accused person, Bujingwa John @ Juma Kijiko. PW5 testified that, he asked the accused person to give him his background and thereafter, he asked him to show where the child alleged to have entered into his house was and he replied that, she would just be traced. As the accused person had two places of abode and had introduced himself as a traditional healer, he asked to be allowed to get his traditional working tools to work on the return of the school girl. They went to the other house. By then, the situation was tense and the witness feared that, either the accused person or himself could be killed. In the circumstances, he asked for assistance from Izigo Police Post. The police from Izigo Police Post later arrived. He also called the Muleba OC-CID, one ASP Mwanyasi, who also came to the scene with a police vehicle and with some other policemen. By the time the police from Muleba arrived, PW5 and other people were at the main road. They took the accused person into the police vehicle. As soon as the accused person was in the vehicle, he said Page 8 of 22 that he would now show where the child was. He took the police and other leaders to the house at Mushonde Hamlet, direct to his bed room. Those who entered into the house and to the specific bedroom included the OC-CID Mwanyasi, himself (PW5) and CPL Ali. Other policemen and civilians remained outside. While in the bedroom, the accused person removed a mattress, grasses and after digging out, he retrieved the body of the child Fausta Geofrey, which had been buried head down and legs up. The retrieved body had two ears cut off, two back shoulders’ flesh chopped off, left hand amputated and private parts removed. The accused person also led them to another room, where he showed the amputated hand grilled on traditional cooking stones. When the accused was asked as to why he did that, he stated that, as a traditional healer, he intended to use the parts of the body he took, as components in local charms for people who wish to be rich. PW5 then took the body of the deceased, the accused person and the father of the deceased, to Kiagara Hospital in Muleba District. PW6 was E5219 D/CPL Ali. He was the investigator of the case. He testified that, on 22.05.2014, while at his working station at Muleba Police Station, he was informed by the OC-CID, ASP Mwanyasi that, at Bisore Hamlet, Muhutwe Village, there was a traditional healer who had been rounded up by a mob of furious people who wanted to harm him on the ground that he has hidden a child called Fausta Geofrey through witchcraft. Himself (PW6); the OC-CID Mwanyasi; the Assistant OC-CID, A/Insp Jaribu; G792 PC Page 9 of 22 Isack; WP6932 D/C Fadhili; and PC Emmanuel; went to Mushonda Hamlet. Upon arrival, they found the accused person already under arrest. There were many people. They put the accused person into the police vehicle and after interrogating him, the accused told him that, he was ready to reveal the truth of the matter. He stated that, he had strangled the child and buried her. It was PW6’s further evidence that, the OC-CID directed that, the accused person should take them to where he buried the child. That is when the accused person took them to the house he used to reside in. He opened the door to that house and he (PW6), the OC-CID Mwanyasi, the WEO Wilson Charles, a neighbour one Filbert Rudovic, the Hamlet Chairman Odilo Mlindwa, Insp. Jaribu, Isack and the parents of the deceased entered into the house. The accused person showed them where he buried the child. Thereafter, he removed a mattress and grasses. They asked for a hoe from neighbours. When a hoe from neighbours was brought, the accused was given the hoe. As the accused person dug out, he retrieved the body which was identified to be that of Fausta Geofrey. The private parts of the body were removed, two ears were cut off, and the chopped off flesh at the back was also chopped off while the left hand was amputated. They asked for the whereabouts of the hand and flesh. The accused person led them to another room where he had grilled the amputated hand and the chopped off flesh, on traditional cooking stones. They took the body of the deceased to Kaigara Dispensary and the accused person to Muleba Police Station. At 5:24pm on 22.5.2014, PW6 took the accused person to Page 10 of 22 record an extra-judicial statement. Thereafter, he went back to the scene of crime, where he drew the sketch map. The sketch plan was admitted in court as exhibit P3. The last witness for the prosecution was one Adolf Cyrilo. He testified as PW7. According to the witness, on 22.05.2014, as the Muleba Ward Executive Officer, and therefore a justice of the peace, he recorded an extra-judicial statement of the accused person. After conduct of a trial within a trial by this court, the extra-judicial statement was admitted as exhibit P4. After closure of the prosecution case, this court was of the view that, a prima facie case had been established sufficient to require the accused person to defend himself. This court found so and ruled accordingly. Therefore, the defence case commenced accordingly. The accused person, Bujingwa John @ Juma Kijiko, testified as DW1. He testified that, he used to reside at Bisore Village within Muleba District as a casual labourer. He claimed to help people in cultivation of their farms on payment. He testified further that, he started to live at Bisore Village from 23.05.2013 in the house of one Maa-Telesia. He remembers that, on 23.05.2013 he was arrested by many civilians and two policemen and taken to the tarmac road. He testified further that, they beat him and forced him to board a police vehicle where there was a dead body. He claimed to have boarded the vehicle with other people whom he Page 11 of 22 could not recognize. Thereafter, he was taken to Kaigara Hospital then to Muleba Police Station where he was put in the lock up. The accused person strongly denied to have killed the deceased, claiming that, he has never killed a human being since he was born. He testified that, he used to reside in a house at Bisore other than the one in which he was arrested. He also denied to have been arrested on 22.05.2014 but rather on 23.05.2013. After the summary of evidence for both the prosecution and the defence as above, this court will now turn to consider and evaluate the evidence on record, to see if the prosecution has managed to prove the accused person’s guilty to the required standards. In criminal cases, the burden of proving the accused person’s guilt always lies with the prosecution side. This is the spirit of Section 3 (2) (a) of the Law of the Evidence Act (Cap. 6 RE. 2002). This position was also stated in the case of Tyamos Asao V. R. (1967) HCD No. 251 where it was stated: “The burden o f p roof in a criminal case is on the prosecution . . . ” The standard of proof, as was stated in the case of Said Hemed V. R. (1987) TLR 117 is beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, therefore, the prosecution has the duty to establish the accused person’s guilty to the required standard. This court’s Page 12 of 22 review of the evidence on record will be on the basis of that burden and standard of proof. As already pointed, the accused person stands charged of murder. It follows that, the prosecution has the duty to prove beyond reasonable doubts, four elements as follows: One, that the death was caused to a person; two, that death was caused by an unlawful act or omission; three, that it is the accused person who did the unlawful act or omission; and four that the killing was done with malice aforethought. In the present matter, as regards the first element, there is strong evidence that the deceased, Fausta Geofrey, is dead and that her death was unnatural. This is in view of the evidence of PW1, Geofrey Raphael, who testified that, on 21.05.2014 in morning hours, the deceased person, who was a pupil at Kitunga Primary School, left home for school but until the evening hours when it was normal for pupils to return back home, she had not come back. Todate she has not been seen. There is also exh. P I, the photographs of the deceased person. The fact that the deceased is indeed dead is also confirmed by Dr. Leontin Rwamulaza (PW4) who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased, exhibit P2. In addition, the accused person did not specifically dispute the death of the deceased. In the final submissions, the learned counsel for the accused person submitted that they do not dispute that the deceased is dead. In the circumstances, there is more than enough evidence as pointed above, to establish and prove that the deceased Page 13 of 22 person, Fausta Geofrey, is indeed dead, and, if I may add, died an extremely horrific death. Coming to the second and fourth elements, that is: whether death was caused by unlawful act or omission, and whether death was caused to the deceased with malice aforethought; may be dealt with together. From the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5 and PW6 which give the circumstances under which the deceased died, it is clear that, the aforesaid death was by suffocating the deceased person followed by removing parts of the body from the dead body of the deceased. The left hand, both ears, uterus and two skin muscles from the deceased’s shoulders were all removed. This indicates that, the perpetrator’s acts were not only unjustifiable but also barbarous and thus unlawful. As such, there may be no doubt that, the perpetrator intended to cause the death of the deceased. Malice aforethought as defined in section 200 (a) of the Penal Code [Cap. 16 R.E.2002] was established. The section provides thus: - “Malice aforethought shall be deemed to be established by evidence proving any one o f or more o f the following circumstances (a) an intention to cause the death o f or to do grievous harm to any person whether that person is the person actually killed or n o t . . In the case of Cosmas Faustine V. R, Criminal Appeal No. 103/2007 (CAT Mwanza Registry) (unreported), the Court of Page 14 of 22 Appeal referred to the earlier case of Republic V Franesco (1945) EACA No.94 and held at page 11 thus:- “In law, intent to cause grievous harm constitutes malice aforethought which, if death ensues, renders the offender guilty o f murder”. In the circumstances, in the view of this court, the death of the deceased was caused by an unlawful act and also the accused killed the deceased with malice aforethought. As such, the second and fourth elements as indicated above have also been established. As regards to the third element, that is, whether it is the accused person in this case, Bujingwa John @ Juma Kijiko, who did the unlawful act or omission, hence causing the death of the deceased person. This is the main disputed aspect in this case. The prosecution side, through the seven witnesses it called, as well as the four exhibits it tendered, is of the position that, the accused person killed the deceased person. On the other hand, the accused person claimed that, he is not the one who killed the deceased person. In this regard, the prosecution brought evidence of two types to prove its case. First there were circumstantial evidence in that, there is no witness who testified seeing the accused person killing the deceased. There were only evidence of circumstances pointing at the accused person as the killer of the deceased person. Secondly, Page 15 of 22 there is evidence of the extra-judicial statement of the accused person. In regard to circumstantial evidence, PW1, Geofrey Raphael testified that, the deceased person left home for school. Then PW2 testified that, he met the deceased on his way to school. PW2 and the deceased and others set to go together to school. On the way, they were called by the accused person and that the deceased heeded the call and went to the accused to pick the promised sweets. The evidence of PW2 shows further that, the deceased entered the accused person’s house. PW2 and others left the deceased in the house of the accused. The deceased was not at all seen at the school and even seen back home. Then PW 1 testified that, he was among civilians who witnessed the accused person leading the way to his house, where the accused had buried the deceased and retrieved her. The accused person dug out the body of a person who was identified to be of Fausta Geofrey. The evidence of PW1 was corroborated by that of PW3, Odilo Mlindwa; PW5, D 4079 D/SGT Apolinary; and PW6, E5219D/CPL Ali. They were all among people who witnessed the body of the deceased being retrieved from where it had been buried by the accused. In his defence, the accused person just generally denied to have killed the deceased person. He did not attack or contradict the prosecution evidence other than merely denying taking part in the killing. He did not give any innocent account of the body being Page 16 of 22 buried in his house. The accused person was cross-examined as to whether he had any grudges with any of those who arrested him, and claimed that, it was because of hatred but did not disclose the source of such hatred. It is a cardinal principle of the law that, every witness is entitled to credence and his testimony to be believed unless there are reasons to the contrary. This principle was stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Goodluck Kyando V. R [2006] TLR No. 367. Nothing has been given to make this court disbelieve the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. Further, this court had the opportunity to see the witnesses who testified for the prosecution. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 all appeared credible witnesses. As already stated, their evidence was not contradicted by the accused person in any way. This court believes what the prosecution witnesses stated in this matter as reflecting the truth. This court has noted some contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. There are inconsistence and contradiction on the exact house in which the body of the deceased was retrieved; there are contradictions on the date that the post­ mortem examination was conducted; there are contradictions on whether the hoe used to dig where the deceased was buried was in the house of the accused person or came from neighbours. It is a cardinal principle of law that, discrepancies and/or contradictions in the account by witnesses, unless they are vital, cannot affect the credibility of witnesses. Unless such contradictions and/or discrepancies Eire material because they cannot be used to jettison Page 17 of 22 the evidence. In the present case, this court finds the contradictions not material because they do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case. The discrepancies and contradictions in this matter, which are minor, do not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. Generally, the circumstances in this matter are such that, they irresistably point at the accused person as the person who killed the deceased. It is a settled principle of the law that, whenever circumstances irresistably point to the guilt of the accused person, then conviction can be grounded on such evidence. This position was stated in the case Mswahili M. V. Republic [1977] TLR No. 25 where it was held:- “In a case where facts are based on solely on circumstantial evidence corroborating each other, a conviction is possible if the circumstantial evidence leads irresistibly to an inference of guilt and should be incapable o f any other reasonable explanation. 99 This court is satisfied that, the circumstances in the present matter, as demonstrated above, pinpoint at the guilt of the accused person, whose defence did not cast doubt on the prosecution evidence. Page 18 of 22 This court wishes to note that, there were evidence of PW3 conducting an identification parade. This court has not given any weight to the purported identification of the accused person by PW2, Lameck Deus and his fellow pupil of Katunga Primary School. In the first place, it is obvious that, if the identifiers found the accused person surrounded by many people at the scene of crime, the identifiers being minors, would automatically point at him to be the suspect. The purported identification parade was doubtful. In any case, the identification of the accused person was not conducted in accordance with the Police General Orders, under which identification parades are conducted. The second piece of evidence in this matter was the extra­ judicial statement. The law on extra-judicial statement was stated by the Court of Appeal for East Africa, in the case of Tuwamoi V. Uganda (1967) EA 84 that: “A conviction can be founded on a confession of guilt by an accused person. The prosecution must first prove that this confession has been properly and legally made. The main essential for the validity o f a confession is that it is voluntary, but the other legal requirements o f each territory must also be established. . . . if the court is satisfied that the statement is properly admissible and so admits it, that is when the court, arriving at its judgment it will consider all the evidence Page 19 of 22 before it and all the circumstances o f the case, and in doing so will consider the weight to be placed on any confession that has been admitted.” The Court of Appeal of Tanzania, in the Case of Abeid Malifedha and another Vs. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No.403”B of 2013 (unreported) gave a similar position. After citing another Court of Appeal decision of Hatibu Tengu Vs R, Criminal Appeal No.62 of 1992 (unreported) it went on to say: " . . . it is said that in dealing with confessions whether retracted or repudiated, a trial court has to go through two stages. The first stage is that o f a trial within a trial. The duty o f the court there is to determine whether the confession was made properly and legally (i.e. voluntarily). I f it rules in the negative, the confession(s) is not admitted. I f it decides to admit a confession, it goes to the second stage. This is in its judgment where the confession is evaluated, as to its truth, weight and probative value; including whether there was any need of corroboration, or whether it can stand alone, after warning itself of the danger of convicting without corroboration As already indicated, this case is already past the first stage. This court conducted a trial within trial and decided to admit the extra-judicial statement as exhibit P4. This court, at this stage, Page 20 of 22 therefore, has to go to the second stage of evaluating the extra­ judicial statement as to its truth, weight and probative value, including deciding on whether there is any need for corroboration. As already pointed when considering circumstantial evidence, there is strong evidence on record to the effect that, the accused person was the one who did show where the deceased person’s body was buried. The accused person recorded the extra-judicial statement with the same details. This convinces this court that, the extra-judicial statement represented, nothing other hand the truth. The extra-judicial statement reflects the truth. Its contents are corroborated with the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW5 and PW6. Infact, even without any corroboration, the extra-judicial statement could n be relied on to convict an accused person. This position was established in the case of Dotto Ngassa V. R; Criminal Appeal No.6/2012; (CAT Mwanza Registry) (unreported) where it was stated at page 14:- “... on the other hand, even if there was no corroboration to the appellant’s extra-judicial statement, authorities are bound to the effect that a conviction can be based on a retracted confession which the trial court found to be true if the court warns itself on the danger o f acting on such evidence Page 21 of 22 In the case at hand, this court is satisfied and after warning itself finds that, the contents of the extra-judicial statement reflects a true and voluntary account of what exactly happened. In view of what is stated above, this court is satisfied that, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubts. The ladies assessors all gave their opinion to the effect that, the prosecution proved the accused person’s guilty to the required standard. This court agrees with the ladies assessors and thus finds the accused person guilty of the offence of murder. The accused person Bujingwa John @ Juma Kijiko is accordingly convicted of the offence of murder c/s 196 of the Penal Code [Cap. 16. R.E. 2002] with which he stands charged. Page 22 of 22