PHILIPO VICENT MAVAZI Criminal Session No

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA SUMBAWANGA SUB-REGISTRY SITTING AT SUMBAWANGA CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO.90 OF 2022 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS PHILIPO s/o VICENT MAVAZI Last order: October 22, 2024 Judgment: December 19, 2024 JUDGMENT NANGELA, J.: The words of Ezra Taft Benson, who served as the 15th United States Secretary of Agriculture during both presidential terms of Dwight D. Eisenhower, that; “Wickedness never did, never does, never will bring […] happiness” to a person who embraces it, seems to have come true in the life of Philipo s/o Vincent Mavazi. As a matter of fact, Philipo s/o Vincent Mavazi is an unhappy person. But for what cause has he become an unhappy person? That is what this case is all about. Philipo, a last born of Mzee Vincent Mavazi, has his hands soiled with innocent blood, the blood of three victims, a mother (who was also seven months or so pregnant of a male foetus) and her two children, (a daughter aged 6 and a son aged 4 years). Page 1 of 25 By all standards, this is one of those few cases that reveal how wicked and cruel a human being can be when his/her rationality comes to the lowest point, mixed up with ignorance of the consequences to follow. But all that is what Martin Luther King, Jr., once stated, concerning cruelty and ignorance of its consequences. He said, and I quote: ‘Cruelty is all out of ignorance. If [one would have known] what [will be] in store for [him/her], [he/she] wouldn't [have] hurt anybody, because whatever [one] does come back much more forceful than [he/she sent] it out.’ When the fruit of human cruelty comes back to haunt its perpetrator, as Arthur Schopenhauer, once stated, ‘the doctor [will see] all the weakness of mankind’, while ‘the lawyer, all the wickedness’, and ‘the theologian, all the stupidity’. The once a self- proclaimed master of other people’s fate has now come to realize that he is but naked before the law. The facts of this case, as I endeavour to narrate them here below, will illustrate all that. Sometimes in January 2022, at Katumba Area, Dalinyi Suburb, Sumbawanga Municipality, there occurred a murderous incident that claimed the lives of Judith d/o Rupia, (a wife to Page 2 of 25 Godfrey s/o Zumba), her daughter Mariam d/o Godfrey Zumba and her son William s/o Godfrey Zumba. Their beheaded bodies were discovered some days in their own house where they used to live at Katumba Area, Sumbawanga Municipality, Rukwa region. The revelation regarding their murder was triggered by the fact that one of the late Judith’s friends, Salome d/o Crispin (who testified as Pw-1), to whom she had earlier, on Friday the 14th of January 2022, disclosed that she was heading to Utengule for a church service on the next day (Saturday) and, that, she was to come back on the Sunday the day to follow, failed to reach out to her on phone on that Sunday evening she had promised to be back. Concerned, Pw-1 went to Judith’s house but found the door closed from outside with a padlock on it. On the following Monday Pw-1 went again to Judith’s house, but she found the door still closed. Since Pw-1 found the house locked and Judith’s phone was unreachable, Pw-1 phone-called Judith’s husband, one Godfrey Zumba (who testified in court as Pw-4). During that time, Pw-4 was away, working in Dar-Es-Salaam. Pw-4 told Pw1 that himself was also concerned about his wife Judith because he was unable to reach out to her by phone. Page 3 of 25 According to Pw-1, Pw-4 told her to wait as he tries to call and ask from his parents (Judith’s in-laws who were living at Utengule Area and from Judith’s parents who lived in Nambogo Area), believing, peradventure, Judith might have gone there. But it was also confirmed that she was not there. Pw-1, Pw-2 and Pw-4 told their stories with heavy hearts. In her testimony in court, Pw-1 narrated that, as the whereabouts of Judith became a nightmare, later, while at home, she received Pw-4’s relative who she could not recall his name (but it came to the attention of this court that he was called Mr. Paul Kayanda who testified as Pw-2). According to Pw-1, Pw-2 had come with instruction from Pw-4 that they go to Judith’s home and break in to see if all was safe. But before doing so, the presence of the Dalinyi Street (Suburb) Chairman, one Albert Kampamba was enlisted. He later testified in court as Pw-3. Having broken the padlock on the door and got inside the house, a quick glance did not create any alarm. According to Pw- 1 and Pw-2, the sitting room of the one bedroomed house was intact with everything well-arranged where each item had belonged, plus some food on the table, which seemed to have been prepared, indicating that at some point in time the family Page 4 of 25 was about to partake its evening meal. But when Pw-1, Pw-2 looked keenly on the sitting room, there was indication of blood trails leading to the bedroom. Upon entering the bedroom, Pw-2 and Pw-3 who managed to enter were greeted with a shocking and unimaginable viciousness as they found Judith’s body laying dead on the floor, followed by her daughter Mariam d/o Godfrey Zumba and her son William. All the deceased bodies which had swollen had their necks cut from the throat backward. Not knowing who committed such heinous crime in such a brutal manner, Pw-2 informed Pw-4 of such a heart breaking and calamitous news. Pw-3 informed the police at Sumbawanga, and later Police examined the scene of the crime, recorded the statements of Pw-1, Pw-2, Pw-3 and Pw-4. The deceased persons’ bodies were also taken to the morgue at Mazwi Health Center for further carrying out of an autopsy. The autopsy was carried out by Dr. Musa Alfred Mbalamwezi, a medical doctor, who testified later in court as Pw-5. He told this court that all three deceased persons had met a similar fate as they sustained similar wounds on their necks and chests. He told this court that, upon further investigation regarding Judith’s body he discovered as well that she was seven months pregnant, and Page 5 of 25 he had as well to separate the foetus from the deceased Judith’s body and found it was of a baby boy weighing I.6 Kg! Pw-5 told this court that he afterwards filled three Postmortem Report Forms in respect of three deceased persons’ deaths. The form concerning Judith Rupia’s death was received as Exh.P-1, while that of Miriam Godfrey Zumba was received as Exh.P-2 and that of William s/o Godfrey Zumba was received as Exh.P-3. According to Pw-5, the cause of all these deaths was similar as it was due to the wounds they had sustained leading to the excessive loss of blood, given that their main necks’ arteries were all severed by a sharp instrument. He opined so, because, according to him, the wounds had sharp edges indicating that the deceased persons were cut more than once, at their necks and on the chests. But it was not Pw-1, Pw-2, Pw-3, Pw-4 or Pw-5 who was able to untangle the Gordian Chord regarding who executed such a horrible and heartbreaking brutality on the deceased persons. Who then had the clues regarding who were the possible assailants? While the perpetrator of such heinous acts thought that by locking the door from the outside, he had locked the truth for ever, it never turned out to be that way. A sweeping tide of truth was blowing towards a stage Page 6 of 25 of unveiling the possible assailant and sweeping away his camouflage. Indeed, as Proverb 21:7 says: “The violence of the wicked, will sweep them away, because they refuse to act with justice….” The sweeping waves started to come to surface from the house of one Vincent Mavazi, the father of the accused. He testified in court as Pw-6. According to him, sometimes in January 2022, while tending his garden, his wife called out aloud summoning him with immediacy to his son’s (the accused’s) room. According to Pw-6, upon hearkening to his wife’s call, he found his son (the accused) in a very bad state of health and unable even to talk as he had vomited everywhere and had even soiled his pants. Pw-6 told this court that, having enlisted the assistance of the Chairman of Mtukula Kitongoji called Salu and a neighbour called Leopold, they managed to rush the accused to hospital where the doctor attended him and told them that the accused had ingested poison. Pw-6 testified further that, the accused was later released from hospital, and they continued to look after him at home. Pw- 6 testified that later, a week after, he and his wife were called by one, Mr. Bernard Kipeta who summoned and told them to meet at Judith’s (deceased) house. Page 7 of 25 Pw-6 told this court that, they knew Judith for about three years because she was related to his wife. He told this court that, he found many people there and as he entered the house, he was able to witness blood stained on the wall and inside was the body of Judith and behind her was the bodies of her two children, one after the other. Pw-6, an old man who could not control his tears as he recounted the awful moments he witnessed as well as the brutality and agony which the deceased persons might have undergone, told the court that, Police came for their investigation and took the bodies away. Pw-6 narrated further that, after the discovery of the bodies, in the next morning, his wife told him that the accused was asking for permission that he go back to hospital because the poison was still wreaking havoc in his belly and, so, he went to Mbeya. But Pw-6’s story will better be understood when linked with that of Pw-7 (E.5071 -Assistant Inspector of Police- Mrisho Ismail Mninga. Pw-7 testified how, on 21st of January 2022, while on leave and at Katumba area in Sumbawanga Municipality, he received information that in his village of Katumba, a woman together with her two kids had been murdered and, for that Page 8 of 25 matter he should start to investigate the matter, informally of course. According to Pw-7, after consulting with the elders of the area including Mzee Vincent Mavazi, (Pw-6), later he was informed that the accused Philipo s/o Mavazi was a possible culprit. He testified that, upon visiting Pw-6 (as he was his longtime friend) and broke the news to him, Pw-6 told him that the accused had gone for treatment in Mbeya as he had an eye problem. According to Pw- 7 (and Pw-6 did support that view), Pw-6 talked with the accused by phone and told Pw-7 that he was to come back. Pw-7 stated further that he was well familiar with the accused because he used to take seedlings of Avocado and lemons from him and used to regard him as a young brother because of his friendship with Mzee Vincent Mavazi (Pw-6). Pw-7 told this court that, the accused did return from Mbeya and, upon his arrival, Pw-6 informed Pw-7 who came, talked with the accused who confessed to him that; indeed, he was the culprit who committed the heinous crimes. According to Pw-7, the accused told him that he committed such heinous crimes because he had previously given three bags of maize and one bag of beans to the deceased (Judith) for cash and when he went to claim the Page 9 of 25 remaining balance from her, the deceased Judith refused to pay him, a fact which enrage him, and he killed her and her children. Pw-7 told the court that, the accused confessed to him that having committed the murderous acts he retired home but being unable to sleep he decided to drink poison to kill himself. But since the poison was too corrosive, and his parents having noticed his condition, took him to hospital. According to Pw-7, at the time when the accused was narrating to him such information, he was talking to him as his brother since Mzee Vincent (Pw-6) had told Pw-7 that the accused had said he would not say anything until Pw-7 arrived. Pw-7 told this court that, having confessed to him, he advised the accused to tarry at home till the police comes to arrest him because people outside were so enraged and could have harmed him. That is how the accused person got arrested later by Police, and such facts were supported by the testimony on Pw-6. Pw-6 testified further that, after his arrest, Police asked him to show them the cloths he was wearing on the day he committed the murderous acts. He testified that they also asked him to show them where he had thrown the deceased Judith’s phone, and he led them to the toilet pit. Pw-6 testified that, in the presence of Page 10 of 25 the Chairman of Kitongoji and the Ward Executive Officer, police went to the toilet of his house, uncovered the toilet top cover and in the toilet pit they were able to recover a phone. He told this court that, later he (Pw-6) was called to the Police Station and recorded a statement. After the accused’s arrest, he was also sent to a Justice of the Peace, one, Hon. Patrick Lipiki, Primary Court Magistrate for Sumbawanga Urban. Hon. Lipiki testified as Pw-8. In his testimony he did tell this court that the accused person was brought to him on 26 January 2022 by Constable Bakari. Pw-8 told this court that PC Bakari requested him to listen to the accused Philipo as he was willing to record a confession before a Justice of the Peace. So, having observed the required procedure, Pw-8 testified that, he recorded the accused’s extra-judicial statement concerning the charges he was facing. The extra-judicial statement was tendered in court and, this court admitted it as Exh.P-4. Pw-8 testified that, by his own statement, the accused confessed before him to have killed the deceased persons and, that, he did so because he was claiming from the deceased Judith to be paid his monies. The testimony of Pw-8 finds support from that of Pw-9, one, SP Madulu, a police Page 11 of 25 Officer currently stationed in Pemba but who, previously, was the OC-CID of Sumbawanga District. In his testimony, Pw-9 confirmed how, on 21/1/ 2022, while in his office, he received information regarding murder incidents which took place in Azimio Suburb, Katumba area, Sumbawanga Municipality and that, he went with a contingent of police, to the scene of the crimes and found that a mother and her two kids had been butchered. Besides, Pw-9 confirmed to have taken the bodies of Ms. Judith Jacob Rupia (the deceased) and one female kid, (Miriam Godfrey Zumba), and a male kid (William Godfrey Zumba) to hospital for examination. He also confirmed that, on 25th January 2022, he received from information the Regional Crimes Officer (RCO) that one culprit was arrested in connection with the murder incidents under investigation and that the culprit was named Philipo Mavazi (the accused). Pw-9 testified that, on 26 January 2022, he was involved in the inspection at the accused’s premises at Katumba Azimio in the residence of Mzee Vincent Mavazi (Pw-6). Pw-9 confirmed that he involved a contingent of Police from the fire and rescue teams and managed to recover the Phone and the bottle which had poison. Page 12 of 25 All these were seized, and a certificate of seizure was prepared wherein Pw-9 recorded the items seized. Pw-9 told this court that the accused person identified both items as the very ones he had earlier described to the police. He then handed over the documents to one, D/Sgt Ansbert, having filled the chain of custody certificate. The seizure certificate and the chain of custody certificate were both tendered in court and were admitted as Exh.P-5 and Exh.P-6 respectively. Pw-9 did also tender in court a phone, Itel Brand, IMEI No.35084422369228 which was admitted as Exh.P-7 as well as an insecticide poison container branded “MupaForce” which was admitted as Exh.P8. Following all such revelations, the accused person having been arrested did also record a caution statement. It was Pw-10 (G.4234 D/CPL Simon Anthony Matiku) who recorded the caution statement of the accused. The caution statement was admitted as Exh. P-9. At that juncture, the prosecution closed its case and this court, having made a finding that the accused had a case to answer, and having addressed the accused in terms of section 293(2) of the CPA and invited the accused, he chose to defend himself under oath, calling no other witness to his aid. Page 13 of 25 In his defence, the accused testified as Dw-1. He totally denied having killed the three deceased persons. He contended that it was Pw-7 (Afande Mrisho) who had induced him to go to his car and promised that the next day he would come and take him to town, a fact which he (the accused) did not) knowing what was going on. He denied having confessed anything to Pw-7 and that, while in remand prison, he was only made to sign papers. He told this court that he knew nothing, but he admitted of not being coerced to make his statement or state anything before the Justice of the Peace. Dw-1 contended that he did not know whether he was before a Justice of the Peace and, that, he was not aware of anything including the statement he recorded at the police. He urged this court to release him because he was not the one who committed the crimes for which he is arraigned in this court. The law as it stands today is that where there is a charge of an offence of murder contrary to section 196 of the Penal Code, Cap.16 R.E.2022, duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove the following elements: (a) that a person died, and, (b) that his death was as a result of an unlawful act (unnatural cause), (c) that the accused person was the one Page 14 of 25 responsible for the murder; and (d) that, before executing the act of murder he had an evil intent or malice aforethought. It is an established principle of law that he who alleges must prove. That principle is at the heart of our jurisprudence and section 110 of the law of Evidence Act, Cap.6 R.E. 2022 does embrace it. The above noted ingredients must, therefore, be proved and the burden of doing so is cast upon the prosecution who must prove them on a “beyond reasonable doubt standard”. See the case Said Hemed vs. Republic [1987] TLR 117. In essence, neither does the accused carry any duty to establish his innocence nor can or should he be convicted because his defence is considered weak or that he failed to defend himself. Conviction must be based on cogent proof from the prosecution. See the case of Selemani Makumba vs. Republic (Criminal Appeal 94 of 1999) [2006] TZCA 96 (21 August 2006). Put differently, conviction must be anchored on the strength of the evidence adduced by the credible and reliable witness (es) of the prosecution. See The Republic vs. Shalu Luwayi Kasema & 2 Others (Criminal Session Case No. 35 of 2022) [2023] TZHC 17730 (18 May 2023). Page 15 of 25 From the foregoing, the issues that need to be responded to and guide my discussion are as follows: (i) Whether the victims (Ms. Judith and her two children- Mariam and William) were dead, and, if so, whether their deaths were because of unnatural causes. (ii) Whether such death, if unnaturally caused, were caused by the accused and he caused such death with malice aforethought. Starting with the first issue, there is no dispute that the victims (deceased persons), namely, Ms. Judith d/o Rupia, (a wife to Gofrey s/o Zumba), her daughter Mariam d/o Godifrey Zumba and her son William s/o Godfrey Zumba were all dead. Moreover, their deaths did not result from natural causes but rather unnatural cause. The three were brutally murdered while at their home. The testimonies of Pw-1, Pw-2, Pw-3, Pw-4, Pw-5, Pw-6 to Pw-10 as well as Exh.P-1, Exh.P-2 and Exh.P-3, all testify to that fact. The question that follows is: who killed the three victims? While the prosecution hold that it was the accused person who Page 16 of 25 brutally killed the three victims, the accused person has totally denied seeking that he be absolved from any such conduct. But it is the evidence on the record that will either absolve him or establish his culpability. And as I look at the available evidence, including the testimonies of Pw-6, Pw-7, Pw-8, Pw-9, and Pw-10 as well as Exh.P-4, Exh.P-5, Exh.P-6, Exh.P-7, Exh.P-8, and Exh.P.-9, they tell a different story suggesting that the accused is a liable person. Essentially, it is a fact, in this case, that no one was an eyewitness to the murder of the three victims the subject of this case. That fact, therefore, means that, this case is entirely dependent upon circumstantial evidence. This type of evidence is based on section 122 of the Evidence Act. See the Court of Appeal of Tanzania’s decision in the case of Julius Justine and 4 others vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2005 (unreported). The law concerning circumstantial evidence under that provision, is to the effect that, a court is entitled to draw inferences as to the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of Page 17 of 25 natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. In view of that, the principle is therefore that, where the prosecution case relies on circumstantial evidence, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the appellant and incapable of explanation of any other reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt. See the cases of Simon s/o Museke vs. Republic, [1958] EA 715; Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Elias Mwashitete and Another [1997] TLR 319 (HC), Ally Bakari and Pili Bakari vs. Republic (1992) TLR 10; and Hassani Fadhili vs. Republic [1994] TLR 89 (CA). It is a common ground in all these cases, that, for conviction of an accused charged with any criminal offence to be successful on the basis of circumstantial evidence, such evidence must irresistibly lend to only a single hypothesis, that is, the accused is guilt. Anchored on the logic of the above noted principle, the question that follows is whether, looking at the facts and the testimonies of the witnesses who appeared before this court, does the evidence points to only single hypothesis that it is the accused who committed the brutal murders? In my view, as I look at the testimonies of Pw-6, Pw-7, Pw-8, Pw-9, and Pw-10 as well as Page 18 of 25 Exh.P-4, Exh.P-5, Exh.P-6, Exh.P-7, Exh.P-8, and Exh.P.-9, the only inference to draw from them is that the accused is guilty of the offences he is facing and no other hypothesis may be made to the contrary. I will reason as to why I hold that view. First, in his testimony, Pw-6, the father of the accused person, testified that, in the month of January, a date he could not recall, the accused was found in his room in a bad state of health and unable even to talk having vomited and soiled the room with his own spews. Pw-6 told the court that, upon taking the accused to hospital, the doctor’s report was that the accused had ingested poison. When asked by this court, Pw-6 told this court that the accused had no history of madness or stress. In essences, even if no doctor’s report was tendered to show that the accused had ingested poison, still, the testimony of Pw-7, Pw-8, Pw-9 and Pw-10 as well as Exh.P.4, Exh.P.5, Exh.P-6, Exh.P-8 and Exh.P-9 do support what Pw-6 told this court regarding the issue of accused having ingested poison. Exh.P-8 which was a poison container was retrieved from a pit latrine following disclosure by the accused to the Police that he had ingested poison and threw the container in a toilet at home. That item was recovered therefrom as the accused had narrated Page 19 of 25 to Pw-9. And why should the accused person ingest poison? The connection between his ingestion of such poison and the commission of the offences are found in his own disclosure to Pw- 7 and Pw-10 and the same is also found in his extra-judicial confession to Pw-8 (received in court as Exh.P-4). That fact is further cemented by Exh.P-9 which is the accused’s own confession. My closer examination of the extrajudicial statement is that the statement does appear to be in all fours with the format prescribed by the Chief Justice’s Guide once discussed in the case of Japhet Thadei Msigwa vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 2008 (unreported). This Exh.P-4 is very detailed and does as well corroborate what is also contained in Exh.P-9. More so, Exh.P-4 and Exh.P- 9 are further supported by what Pw-6, Pw-7 and Pw-9 told this court. The confessions made in Exh.P-4 and Exh.P-9 are material confessions made voluntarily by the accused person. According to section 27 of the Evidence Act, Cap.6 R.E 2022, a confession of that kind is admissible in law. The accused’s confession is not only as contained in Exh.P-9 but is in what he reiterated before Pw-8, the Justice of the Peace. The contents of Page 20 of 25 the confession are the same as what the accused explained to Pw- 7 as well and he did so freely while the two were having a cup of porridge at the accused’s home. From the above analysis of the evidence availed to this court, even though no direct witness saw the accused committing the offences he is currently facing in court, his own oral confession before Pw-8, Pw-10 and which were recorded as per Exh.P-4 and Exh.P-9 and which are independently corroborated by the testimony of Pw-7, do reveal and point to one hypothesis, that is: the accused committed the heinous crimes and no other person. As one of the cardinal principles of criminal law, the mere commission of an act (offence) is not necessarily sufficient to establish criminal liability of the offender unless the same is accompanied with the necessary guilty mind (mensrea). That is a long-established principle summarised by the Latin Maxim: ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ that translates to “the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.” The question that follows, therefore, is whether the accused person, who is before this court, committed such heinous crimes with sufficient malice aforethought. Page 21 of 25 In their testimonies, Pw-7, Pw-8 and Pw-10 testified that, the accused had disclosed to them why he decided to kill the deceased persons. The reason, according to his own disclosures, was that he had been claiming some monies from the late Judith, the first deceased, who is also the mother of the two other deceased persons the accused had ruthlessly hacked to death. One point to take note of is that such a reason, as disclosed by the accused in his confession, does divulge the motive behind the killings. From that fact, I am remanded of the in the case of Obadia Kijalo vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 95/2007 CAT (unreported), in which the Court of Appeal of Tanzania was of the view that: “malice aforethought may be demonstrated by looking at the motive for the offence and the conduct of the suspect immediately before and after the act or omission…” In the case at hand, the accused’s motive was based on his alleged claims but the subsequent conduct which include, the killing of the two kids after killing their mother, coupled with his locking them in the house, and ingestion of poison trying to Page 22 of 25 eliminate his life and ensure that all evidence is lost, do suggest that his cup of cruelty was full and overflowing. But the kind of weapon which he used, the nature of the attack itself, the part of the body where the attack was directed, or the kind of injuries inflicted on the body, tell it all. See for that matter, Exh. P-1, Exh.P-2 and Exh.P-3 and the case of Enock Kipela vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1994 (unreported). Under section 200 (a) and (b) of the Penal Code, malice aforethought is to be deemed established by evidence proving among others — (a) an intention to cause the death of or to do grievous harm to any person, whether that person is the person actually killed or not; (b) knowledge that the act or omission will probably cause the death of or grievous harm to some person. As I consider what I have pointed out herein above, it is my findings that the accused person had the necessary mensrea to murder the three deceased persons (victims). Having made such a finding, it is my considered view and conclusive finding, that, the accused, PHILIPO s/o VINCENT MAVAZI, is guilt of all three counts which he stands charged and, having so found him guilty, I hereby proceed to convict him of the unlawful murder Page 23 of 25 of JUDITH d/o RUPIA, MIRIAM d/o GODFREY ZUMBA and WILLIAM s/o GODFREY ZUMBA contrary to section 196 of the Penal Code, R.E 2019. SENTENCE In a murder case like this one at hand, once the accused is proved to have killed another with malice aforethought and gets convicted thereby, Section 197 of the Penal Code, Cap.16 R.E 2022 provides only one sentence. The sentence prescribe under the law is death penalty to that person so convicted and, such sentence is to be passed, without any excuse recognized by law. Since this court has found the accused PHILIPO s/o VINCENT MAVAZI guilt of the offence he is facing and has consequently convicted him, I hereby sentence the accused to suffer death by hanging as provided under section 197 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16 [RE 2022]. Any party, hereto, who feels aggrieved by this judgement of this court has right to appeal to the Court of Appeal as provided for under the laws of this country. It is so ordered. DATED AT SUMBAWANGA ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 Page 24 of 25 ................................... DEO JOHN NANGELA JUDGE Page 25 of 25