REPUBLIC VERSUS JONAS YOHANA CHISUPO JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DODOMA SUB REGISTRY AT DODOMA (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 190 OF 2022 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS JONAS S/O YOHANA CHISUPO MTUBWA ------------------- JUDGMENT Date of last Order: 11/10/2024 Date of Judgment: 28/10/2024 LONGOPA, J.: The accused person, Jonas Yohana Chisupo Mtubwa stands charged with offence of murder contrary to section 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022. It was alleged that on 27/04/2022 at Nghulagano Village in Bahi District at 23:00 hours, the accused did murder on Ezeleda Abraham Mtengule. The accused denied the commission of the offence which necessitated the prosecution to call seven (7) prosecution’s witnesses with two (2) documentary evidence and the defence had only a single witness, the accused person himself. The parties were represented by Ms. Rose Ishabakaki, Magreth Fyumagwa, Prisca Kipagile and Jackline Manyara, learned State Attorneys 1|Page for the Republic while the defence enjoyed the legal service of Ezekiel Amon, learned advocate. PW 1: Msafiri Mwaluko, a child of tender age stated that on 27/04/2022 at 23:00 hours while at home where his mother and father went to drink. Later on, his mother returned, prepared food and they ate around 23:00hours in absence of the accused. On return of his father, the accused was given food and he left his parents at sitting room. As per PW 1, after few minutes he heard his mother calling for help saying that she was dying. PW 1 stated that he saw his father stabbing the victim with a knife. He saw the accused stabbing the deceased on upper part of the body. According to PW 1, it was night but there was solar power at the bedroom, sitting room and outside the house with sufficient lighting. It took five minutes from the time PW 1 woke up to seeing the stabbing. It was PW 1 evidence that ran out to call sister Maria who slept in another house outside that big house. PW 1 stated that when they reached at the door met the accused running out, with blood on his feet. Meanwhile, the victim was lying down while having blood flowing on the hands and abdomen, thus the children called for help and neighbours came to assist. In cross examination, PW 1 stated that the accused came from drinking and there was always fight when his father was drunk. On the 2|Page fateful date, PW 1 stated that the accused was very drunk and that he did not hear anything else apart from my mother stating that she is dying. PW 1 stated that he told the police that he saw a knife that was left by the accused on the incident day and his parents were fighting regularly. In the fight, the accused and victim were fighting using utensils. PW 1 stated that fight would happen every time the accused was drunk. PW 2: Maria Jonasi Yohana Chisupo stated that on 27/04/2022 at the evening around 18:00 her mother prepared the meal, and at around 19:00 hours the ate the meal when the accused returned while drunk and sat with the family to eat. The persons present included PW 2, the victim and her siblings. According to PW 2, at around 20:00 hours PW 1 went to sleep leaving the accused and the victim at the sitting room. It was until 23:00 hours when her young brother woke her up inform that the accused was killing their mother (victim). PW 2 stated that at the door met the accused person while fleeing the house and he had blood on blood on his shirt and at the hands. It was PW 2‘s evidence that in her parents’ bedroom, blood was flowing in the floor whereas the victim was sitting down stating that to have been stabbed by the accused person at the chest and other wounds on the abdomen that made the victim to lose consciousness. The victim was taken to the health centre/Dispensary where she got treatment but she died around 03:00am of 28/04/2022. 3|Page PW 2 reiterated that accused and victim had regular fights for the whole period of two years and on material date she did not hear anything prior to being called by Msafiri. In cross examination, PW 2 stated on fateful night, she went to sleep at 20:00 hours and she does not know the reason for the accused to stab the victim. It is correct that accused was very drunk. The deceased and the victim used to fight regularly before the fateful date and that always happened her parents were drunk. However, PW 2 does not know source of the fight. It took three hours from the time PW 2 and PW 1 went to sleep until when she was woken up that there was a fight. PW 2 reiterated that she was 14 years old when she made a statement at Police Station in 2022 and she named one Msimamo Mwaluko as the person who informed her about the victim being stabbed. PW 2 stated that she does not remember the age of one Msafiri Mwaluko at the time of incident. It was emphasized that the name of the PW 2’s brother is Msafiri Mwaluko or Yohana Mwaluko and that he did not know source of blood in her father’s shirt. PW 3: Juma Ndoji Malaka stated that on 27/04/2022 at around 23:00hours he was woken up by Haruni Samweli and informed that Ezeleda Abraham Mtengule was injured by stabbing from her husband Jonas Yohana Chisupo. 4|Page PW 3 stated to have visited the Ngulughano village dispensary where the victim was taken and she had wounds on chest, abdomen and at the hand. Later on, PW 3 got information that one Ezeleda Abraham Mtengule had died.PW 3 verified about the occurrence of death before informing the police at Kigwe Police Station and the Police officers from Bahi Police Station arrived at Ngulughano on 28/04/2022 at 09:00 hours. It was PW 3’s testimony that police called a medical doctor from Chipanga Health Centre to conduct postmortem examination of the deceased body. It was the evidence of PW 3 that he and Msafiri led the Police Officer to draw a Sketch map at the scene of crime at around 12:00 hours. On cross examination, PW 3 he recorded his statement before two police officers, Safari and John on 28/04/2022. PW 3 reiterated that accused and victim’s relationship was always characterized by conflict though the source of the fight is not known. PW 4, Ester Abraham Mtengule testified that on 28/04/2022 she heard a call for help outside while sleeping whereas she met her sister Anna who informed her about the death of Ezeleda Abraham Mtengule. PW 4 stated she ran to the house of Ezeleda Abraham Mtengule where she found the victim lying down on the floor with blood flowing. There was sufficient light of solar power. PW 4 stated that victim informed her that one Jonas Yohana Chisupo is the one who attacked. She had a lot of wound in the chest, backside and other places of the body. 5|Page It was PW 4 evidence that the victim was taken to Nghulagano Dispensary and it her who identified the body of the victim prior to conduct of postmortem report by the doctor. The cause of death was loss of blood caused by wound secondary to cut by a sharp. In cross examination, PW 4 stated that the victim was always conscious until later on after she got unconsciousness at the Dispensary and finally the victim succumbed to death. PW 5: Emmanuel Robert Nganya testified that on 28/04/2022 he was called by the police from Chipanga Health Centre to conduct the Post mortem examination at Nghulagano village where a body of Ezeleda Abraham Mtengule was found. It was PW 5 evidence that he examined the deceased physically where it was found existence of wounds at the neck, chest, abdomen and at both hands. There were around 15 wounds in the body of the deceased with different sizes around 2 – 3 cm appearing to be were caused by sharp object. According to PW 5, the cause of death was severe bleeding due to wounds thus filled in a postmortem examination report which was tendered, admitted and marked as Exhibit P 1. In cross examination, PW 5 stated that examination was done through external appearance where the body was normal. The observation on page 3 where the information is not filled on the stomach. The stomach is internal organ while abdomen is the external feature. 6|Page PW 6: H 8120 D/CPL John stated that on 28/04/2022 he recalls to have gone to the scene of crime as Nghulagano village in Chipanga Ward Division in Bahi District. It was PW 6 evidence that on arrival at Nghulagano the police officers went to village Dispensary were the deceased body was kept. PW 6 went there to draw a sketch map of the scene of crime which was tendered as Exhibit P2. According to PW 6, he was led by one Juma Ndoje the village Chairman and Msafiri Mwaluko went to the scene of crime to draw a sketch map. The scene of crime was the residence of the deceased where she lived with her husband. It was PW 6 testimony that he knew that the suspect was Jonasi Yohana Chisupo while the deceased’s named was Ezeleda Abraham Mtengule as he was so informed. The scene of crime was in the sleeping room in a house with a sitting room. At the door, sitting room and the room where deceased slept had solar power. There were three rooms in that house. PW 6 stated to have inspected the scene of the crime where he found blood in the mattress, clothing of the deceased and blood stains on the floor thus drew a sketch map being led by Mr. Juma Ndoje and Msafiri Mwaluko who led me in drawing the sketch map. The Sketch Map was tendered, admitted and marked as Exhibit P. 2. It was stated by PW 6 that upon completion of drawing the sketch map both the drawer and person who led signed except one Msafiri Mwaluko did not. It was PW 6 evidence that the blood stains were believed 7|Page to be that of the deceased as the body was not at the scene of crime because it had been taken to Nghulagano Dispensary. It was Msafiri Mwaluko who told PW 6 that the blood came from the body of the deceased as in that room it was the victim and accused are the only persons who were resident. During cross-examination, PW 6 stated that he was the investigator of the offence. However, PW 6 admitted to have not investigated nor subjected the samples of blood stains found at the scene of crime to correct any possibilities of reasonable doubts. It was PW 6 evidence that he found a knife at the scene of crime which is believed to have caused death but the same was not tendered in court. It was his evidence that there were only two persons at the scene during drawing of the sketch map the drawer and the person who led the investigation/drawing the sketch map. PW 7: G. 8568 D/CPL Safari adduced evidence to the extent that on 28/04/2022, went to Nghulagano village dispensary where the body of the deceased was kept. It was his evidence that he witnessed examination of the deceased body and that the cause of death was severe blood loss due to stab by sharp object on various parts of the body of the deceased. PW 7 stated to have the body with wounds on various parts including in the abdomen, thighs, chest and both hands. PW 7 stated further that he went to Chipanga Health Centre where the Medical Officer who conducted post mortem examination filled in the postmortem report and handed it to him (PW 7). 8|Page It was PW 7’s evidence that on 29/04/2022 he was assigned police with number BAHI/IR/279/22 on murder case of Ezeleda Abraham Mtengule and the suspect was Jonas Yohana Chisupo who was not yet arrested. The offence happened on 27/04/2022 at 23:00hours Nghulagano village. The file contained statements of witness, postmortem report and the sketch map. It was PW 7 testimony that on 01/07/2022, Police got information that suspect has voluntarily reported to Itigi Police Station Manyoni thus Detective PrayGod went to collect the suspect and they arrived at 11:00hours. The accused was interrogated and admitted to have stabbed the deceased using a sharp object. Further, PW 7 observed that the accused ran/fled after the incident and that it was discovered that the accused is the one who committed the crime as one Msafiri Mwaluko saw the incident, went to wake up his sister and they both met the accused at the door while fleeing. In cross examination, PW 7 stated the cautioned statement recorded was not tendered in court and that he does not know reasons for not tendering it in court. It was also PW 7 testimony that the knife was in the custody of police but it was not tendered. He alluded that two reasons might have contributed. First, there is a witness who saw the incident. Second, it is the prosecution/National Prosecutions Services (NPS) which choses the evidence to tender in court thus it would appear that NPS did not see the need to bring to court the cautioned statement and the knife used to execute or commit the offence. 9|Page PW 7 stated that the Police General Orders (PGO) states that tendering of exhibits depends on the circumstances whether or not it is convenient and necessary to tender a particular exhibit. It was further evidence of PW 7 that it is true that the accused was sent to the Justice of Peace Hon. Muja Makosa where extra judicial statement was recorded on admission of the offence. It was his testimony that he had not stated in this court the reasons for the accused person to stab the deceased as to confessed admitted in the cautioned statement and extrajudicial statement. On the other hand, the defence had a single witness namely DW 1: Jonas Yohana Chisupo stated that on 27/04/2022 both the accused and victim went to drink, at the evening the victim prepared food and they ate the food before he left to meet his friends. It was DW 1 statement that on return home at 23:00hours, he found his wife with another man in their bedroom. The person was hiding at the door, allegedly pushed the accused while entering the house and the man ran away. It was DW 1’s evidence that in course of questioning the victim on details of the person who ran away a fight ensued. The victim overpowered the accused and used the chair to beat the accused. DW 1 took iron rod that was in the room to hit the victim in order to overpower her. DW 1 It is at that time that Msafiri went out to call his sister. According to DW 1 having panicked, he left home and he handed himself to Itigi police station on 01/07/2022, taken to Bahi Police Station. DW 1 stated to have recorded the cautioned statement on 02/07/2022 and 10 | P a g e taken to Justice of Peace where he recorded extra judicial statement that revealed that there was a fight which might have led to death of the victim. It was DW 1 testimony that the cautioned statement and extra- judicial statement contained all material evidence on what he stated regarding his participation in the commission of the alleged offence. Thus, failure to tender them is unjustifiable as it would have availed the Court with all material evidence necessary for the determination of the matter. During cross examination, DW 1 stated that it is true that victim was his wife, and that on 27/04/2022 they had a meal together in the evening. He stated that he has no evidence that he left to meet his friends in that night and that no evidence of the victim having been engaged in extra marital affairs. It was his evidence that he was drunk on fateful day and he does not know number of stabs that deceased sustained. That being the totality of evidence on record, it is pertinent for this Court to consider the same is light of the offence the accused person stood charged to find out if he is guilty or otherwise. The murder is a very serious offence that calls for cogent evidence to be laid to support the case against the accused person. The evidence must sufficient to establish all the ingredients of the offence. In Alex Kapinga & Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2005) [2006] TZCA 145 (31 August 2006) (TANZLII) at pages 8-9, the Court of Appeal stated that: Section 196 of the Penal Code provides - 11 | P a g e "196. Any person who of malice aforethought causes the death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder." From the above provision, in order to succeed, the prosecution had to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that first, the death of the deceased was at the hands of the appellants; second, that the appellants acted wrongfully in injuring the deceased; and, thirdly, that there was malice aforethought. The prosecution should ably establish that in the circumstances of the case all these ingredients exist. The record indicates that death of the victim happened on 28th April 2022 and it was caused by injuries sustained by multiple wounds in her body. Testimonies of PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, and PW 7 reveal that the victim sustained multiple wounds and there was loss of blood as a result of such wounds. It is the reason that the Post Mortem Examination Report Exhibit P.1 concluded that there were seen multiple stabs and penetrated wounds near the pericardial area, neck, abdomen, and also ring-thumb broken caused by sharp object which severe hemorrhage thus shock leading to death. Thus, death was not natural death rather unnatural one. The issue is the link between the multiple injuries inflicted on the deceased by a sharp object with the accused person. Is the accused person solely responsible for the death of the deceased? To answer this 12 | P a g e question, a thorough examination of the available evidence on record is of paramountcy importance. The only purported direct evidence for this matter is that of PW 1 one Msafiri Mwaluko, who is child of tender age. The evidence of PW 1 is on incident indicates the following aspects. First, he stated that the accused returned home after 23:00 hours as they had their dinner at 23:00 before the accused’s return. Second, the incident happened at that same time. Third, there was solar power light. Fourth, the accused stabbed the deceased using a knife which was left at the scene of crime. However, PW 2 stated that on fateful date the dinner was eaten at 19:00 hours when the accused person returned. Also, that she and her siblings went to sleep at 20:00 hours and left the accused and victim at the sitting room. Further, it was until 23:00 when PW 1 went to woke her up stating that the accused is killing the victim. Thus, the children had slept for about three hours before the incident happened. Furthermore, PW 2 admitted that when interrogated by Police officer on 28/04/2022 she named on Msimamo Mwaluko as the person who witnessed the incident and woke her up. It was PW 2’s evidence actually the person who witnessed the incident is not other than Msafiri Mwaluko, PW 1. It is obvious that from evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 the incident leading to death of victim differ somewhat. This creates some doubts as to the credibility of the evidence of these two witnesses. Indeed, PW 2 recorded her statement when she was 14 years old in April 2022 but in 13 | P a g e testifying, she stated to be 15 years old after two years and four months have lapsed since recording her statement. I am inclined to discredit the testimonies of PW 2 as it is inconsistent and appear to be incredible. That being the case, the evidence of PW 1 remains uncorroborated evidence. In the case of Frank Richard Shayo vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2020) [2024] TZCA 230 (22 March 2024), at page 7, the Court stated that: It is trite law that, every witness is entitled to credence and the court is expected to believe his evidence as a credible witness. That is what was well stated in the case of Goodluck Kyando v. Republic, [2006] TLR 363, where it we held: "It is trite law that every witness is entitled to credence and must be believed and his testimony accepted, unless there are good and cogent reasons for not believing a witness. " Indeed, there are cogent reasons to disbelieve testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2. The testimonies differ in terms of timing on presence of the accused at home on the incident day, naming of the witness of the incident when recording the statement before the Police officers and credibility of PW 2 as regarding her age. In respect of the identification of the accused, it can be observed that PW 1 and PW 2 stated that there was solar power lighting in that place. However, none of these two witnesses testified on the intensity of the light in question given that the alleged offence was said to have been 14 | P a g e committed at 23:00 hours. Though the source of light was stated, it was pertinent that intensity of the light ought to have been categorically elucidated for avoidance of mistaken identity. In the case of Yohana Chibwingu vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2015) [2015] TZCA 447 (5 June 2015), at page 7, the Court stated that: Likewise, in some cases, such as identification by a single witness in unfavourable conditions, corroboration may be required as a matter of practice, which may be in the form of other witnesses, conduct of physical evidence. It must also be borne in mind that in matters of identification favaurable conditions of identification alone are no guarantee for the truth. Credibility is also important (See JARIBU ABDALLAH v. R in Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1994 (unreported). The victim is said to have been found with multiple wounds from a sharp object as per oral evidence of PW 5 and Exhibit P. 1. Those wounds were found in various parts of the deceased body namely pericardial area, neck, abdomen, and also ring-thumb broken. This was the evidence of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 7 as well. It is intriguing that evidence of PW 1, PW 6 and PW 7 that the sharp object was a knife which was recovered at the scene of the crime, but it was not part of the evidence in court. PW 6 testified that such knife was recovered and indicated in the key of the sketch map and kept at the 15 | P a g e Exhibit Keeper at the Police in Bahi Police Station. Exhibit P.2 which is a Sketch map revealed that there was a knife recovered at the scene of crime. PW 7 reiterated further that a knife was recovered from scene of the crime but it was not tendered. Having observed that evidence of PW 1 was not corroborated and contradicted by testimony of PW 2, absence of the knife alleged to have been used to stab the deceased there is nothing to substantiate that the deceased was stabbed by sharp object. I am not oblivious of the settled principle that prosecution can choose evidence to tender depending on prosecution strategy. In the case of Hashimu Koma vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2022) [2023] TZCA 17916 (29 November 2023) (TANZLII), at pages 7-8, the Court illustratively noted that: We also agree with the learned Senior State Attorney that, the prosecution was at liberty to choose the kind of evidence it wishes to use in proving its case. In Justine Hamis Juma Chamashine v. Republic, (supra) the Court held that: "We have considered exciting submission in support of grounds 1,5,6 and 10 by Mr.Mwansoho. Much as the learned advocate for the appellant regarded DNA and fingerprint evidence to be so vital, we think the prosecution had the discretion regarding which witness to call and which type of evidence to produce as long as they comply with the laws governing the admissibility of evidence, relevancy, competence and compellability of 16 | P a g e witnesses to testify. In other words, subject to any written law applicable, choosing which witness to present to court was a matter of prosecution's trial strategy. Mr. Mwansoho cannot impose his evidential preferences on the prosecution's trial strategy." With the above position, the prosecution was free to determine which form of evidence to prove its case and which, however, probative, to discard. This principle gives a latitude on the prosecution to determine type of evidence to tender in court where such evidence is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution to the required standard. However, the evidence on record seems to fall short to establish through direct evidence, physical evidence becomes crucial to cater for that void. Another aspect was the evidence of PW 7 that the accused person did confess to have committed the offence vide a recorded/ documented cautioned and extrajudicial statements. There is only oral testimony of PW 7 that accused recorded statements whereby he admitted to have committed the offence. In law, oral confession is permissible. In the case Director of Public Prosecutions vs Fadhili Chengula (Criminal Appeal No.565 of 2019) [2023] TZCA 17525 (24 August 2023), at pages 15-16, the Court of Appeal stated that: Certainly, an oral confession made by a suspect, before or in the presence of reliable witnesses, may be sufficient by itself to found conviction against the suspect - see for 17 | P a g e example the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Nuru Mohamed Gulamrasul [1988] T.L.R. 82. In Martin Manguku v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2004 (unreported), the Court stressed that for an oral confession to be valid and form a basis for conviction it must have been made when the suspect to whom the words are imputed was a free agent. It is on record that PW 1 stated simply that he brought the accused to the interrogation room whereby the accused admitted to have caused death of the victim by stabbing with a knife. In the instant case, neither a cautioned statement nor extrajudicial statement was tendered. It raises a reasonable doubt if the same was made at all. The reasons are that: First, the there is nothing on record regarding time of commencement to time of finishing recording of the cautioned statement. Second, there is no evidence indicating that accused was afforded opportunity to be informed about his rights under the law to call witness especially a relative, friend or lawyer of his choice. Third, there is nothing indicating that the cautioned statement complied with humane treatment as well as conditions pertinent to recording cautioned statement. Fourth, there was nothing stated on compliance with CJ’s Guide on recording extrajudicial statements. None disclosure of all these aspects points that alleged confessional statements might have not been made in accordance with tenets of law. Thus, the cautioned statement failed to comply with Sections 50, 51, 54, and 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 R.E. 2022. I shall disregard 18 | P a g e testimony that there was any confessional statement made at all. The principle is illustrative in the case of Charles Ernest & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 248 (26 March 2024), at pages 11-12, the Court of Appeal stated that: As submitted by both counsel, none of the statements states whether it was read over and confirmed by the maker to be correct before it was signed. We firmly view these omissions as grave infractions that cannot be glossed over as they render the statements involuntary. It cannot be said, in the circumstances, that the appellants voluntarily confessed to the offence of murder they stood charged. In consequence, we find merit in the appellant counsel's submission and proceed to discount the two extra - judicial statements. By dint of the outcome on the submission above, we are compelled to allow the second submission on the cautioned statements (exhibits P2 and P5) as well. We found that one; the recording of the statements was in contravention of section 57 (2) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Chapter 20, two; there is no evidence that the statements were read over to the appellants before signing them, and three; there is no corroboration from independent witness. Similarly, fate should also bore on 19 | P a g e the current confessional statements having found they were procured through torture as found by PW7. In the circumstances of this case, there a lot of loopholes that are left in the prosecution evidence which in my view cannot suffice to warrant conviction of the accused person. There is nothing tangible and cogent to link the accused person with killing of the deceased. The accused has demonstrated that he drunk and a fight ensued where the victim attacked him upon questioning her about the man, he found in his bedroom on that material date at night. He denied to have used any knife. It was the defence evidence that throughout since his voluntary submission to Police station he reiterated that there was a fight, the deceased had overpowered him as he was so drunk and in attempt to rescue oneself, he might have injured the deceased. It is a settled principle that it is duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. In Pascal Yoya @ Mganga vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2017) [2021] TZCA 36 (24 February 2021) (TANZLII), at pages 16-17, the Court observed that: It is a cardinal principle of criminal law in our jurisdiction that, in cases such as the one at hand, it is the prosecution that has a burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts to the accused. An accused only needs to raise some reasonable doubt on the prosecution case and he need not prove his innocence. See the cases of Woolmington v. Director of Public 20 | P a g e Prosecutions [1935] AC 462; Abdi Ally (supra) and Mohamed Haruna @ Mtupeni & Another v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2007 (unreported). In the just cited case of Mohamed Haruna @ Mtupeni & Another (supra) the Court stated that: "Of course, in cases of this nature the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The standard has always been proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite law that an accused person can only be convicted on the strength of the prosecution case and not on the basis of the weakness of his defence. As there is nothing to link that it is the accused person who stabbed the deceased by a knife and he did so with intention to kill the victim, it is my finding that prosecution failed to prove to the required standard that offence of murder was committed. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to subject the knife alleged used to kill the deceased which was recovered at the scene of crime to scientific analysis to indicate the semblance of DNA in the knife and that of the deceased to establish without doubt that it is correctly that sharp object stated to have been used to stab the deceased is actually the knife in question. Failure to do so leaves a lot of doubts to this Court on the truthfulness of use of the knife to stab the deceased person by the accused person. 21 | P a g e In the circumstances, I am inclined to find out that the accused person therefore is absolved from any charges against him. The accused person is not guilty of the offence of Murder contrary to section 196 and 197 of the Penal Code,16 R.E. 2022 as charged and I proceed to acquit and order immediate released from prison unless lawfully held. It is so ordered. DATED at DODOMA this 28th day of October 2024. E.E. LONGOPA JUDGE 28/10/2024. 22 | P a g e