republic vs bahati abel busanze 2 others 2022 tzhc 15332 20 december 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF MWANZA AT GEITA CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 120 OF 2019 REPUBLIC VERSUS 1. BAHATI S/O ABEL @ BUNANZE 2. NENGO S/O KWANGU 3. MWALA S/O BUNANZE @ MASHAIRI JUDGMENT 28/11/2022 & 20/12/2022 ROBERT, J:- The three accused persons named above stand charged with murder contrary to sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, (Cap. 16 R.E.2002). It was alleged that on 31st day of January, 2017 at Kawimyole village within Chato District in Geita region the three accused persons did murder one Valentina d/o Mabula. The prosecution's case was to the effect that, the third accused Mwala Bunanze @ Mashairi had a daughter called Joyce Abel who was married to a son of the deceased. The said daughter died in 2012 and the third accused alleged that his deceased daughter died as a result of being i bewitched by the deceased Valentina d/o Mabula. Consequently, all the three accused persons planned to kill the deceased Valentine Mabula. On 31/01/2017 at about 21.00HRS the first and second accused went to the home of the deceased and found her having dinner with her family. They attacked her and cut her with a panga in various parts of her body as a revenge for killing their daughter. The prosecution alleged that the first and second accused persons were identified at the scene of crime. The incident was reported to the local government and then to the police who went to the scene of crime in the company of the Medical Doctor who examined the body of the deceased and prepared the post­ mortem examination report indicating the cause of death to be hemorrhagic shock due to multiple cut-wounds. The police conducted investigation, drew the sketch map of the scene of crime and recorded statements of witnesses. The first and second accused were arrested, upon interrogation by the police and in their extra- judicial statements they confessed to have committed the offence and mentioned the third accused as the one who conspired with them . The third accused was also interrogated and confessed to have conspired to kill 2 the deceased. Consequently, the accused persons were arraigned and charged with the offence of murder. At the hearing of this matter, the prosecution was represented by Mr. Boniphace Mondu, State Attorney whereas the three accused persons were each represented by Messrs. Siwale Yisambi, Constantine Ramadhan, and Vianney Mbuya, learned counsel for the first, second and third accused respectively. To prove their case, the prosecution paraded four witnesses, Rudovick Andrea Rundiho (PW1), Assistant Inspector Stela Thomas Kataga (PW2), Fumbuka Makorobela (PW3) and Martin Kagoma (PW4). PW1 who is the Assistant Medical Officer at Chato District Hospital informed the Court that, on 1/2/2017 while at work, he was called by the Doctor in-charge who asked him to go with the police officers to examine a body of a dead person. He went with the said police officers to the village of Kawinyole where he reached at about 12:30 HRS and found the body of the deceased outside the building. He examined the body of the deceased and observed that it was the body of a female African and it was cut in various parts of the body including the head, chest and private area (the whole area of pubic hair up to the clitoris was removed). Thereafter, he 3 prepared the post mortem examination report where he indicated that cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock and brain injury. The post mortem examination report was received and admitted as exhibit Pl. PW2 recounted that, in 2017 she was working at the Department of Criminal Investigation at Chato Police Station. On 7/2/2017 she was the officer in-charge of the CRO (Charge Room Office) at Chato police station. She arrived at work around 06:00hrs and at around 6:30hrs police officers arrived from patrol with many suspects including the accused persons in this case. Later on the same day at about 8:30hrs she was called by the OCCID who instructed her to interrogate the suspect by the name of Bahati Abel @ Bunanze. She recorded the statement of the said suspect from around 8:15hrs and ended at around 10:30 hrs on the same day. She also identified the first accused at the dock as the person whose statement she recorded. She informed the Court that the first accused told her that he was asked by his father one Mr. Bunanze to kill the deceased which he did together with his two uncles (mjomba and Baba mdogo). PW3 informed the Court that, he was the Chairman of Kyamyole village. On 31/1/2017 at about 21:00hrs he heard people raising alarm from the southern part of the village. He went to the place where the 4 alarm was coming from and noted that it was in the family of one Kagoma Nyantongwa. He found a gathering of about 100 people and asked what had happened in that family. He was told by the people who went there earlier that Valentina Mabula (the deceased) was cut by pangas. He used the torchlight to look at the deceased's body and observed that the body was cut in various parts including the head, face, and the breast. Thereafter, he reported the matter to police by phone call. The police arrived at the scene of crime around midnight and asked the people to protect the body of the deceased and promised to come back to the scene of crime the following day. The following day at around 12.00hrs the police arrived at the scene of crime together with a medical Doctor who examined the body of the deceased. The police interrogated members of the family and recorded statements. Thereafter, the police left and allowed the villagers to continue with the funeral and burial process. He stated that, there were rumours from the relatives who went to the funeral that the individuals who participated in the alleged murder were Bahati Abel and Mnanza and they were already arrested. 5 PW4 recounted that, in the morning of the 31/1/2017 he went to graze his father's cattle at Kisesa area which is closer to his village. He came back home at about 19.00hrs and returned the cattle in the kraal. At around 21.00hrs one Bahati Mashiri and Nengo arrived where they were eating. They called his mother (the deceased), after that his mother took a solar lamp in order to use it to see the people who were calling. However, the said people attacked and cut her on the head, face and removed her breast, private part and the tongue. He testified that those who were with him at the scene namely Nzalia, Elias, Nzalia Mdogo and Leticia Kefu ran away when they saw the deceased being cut. He also ran for a short distance from the scene, raised alarm and decided to hide at a nearby place as he kept on looking at what the assailants were doing from where he was hiding. He alleged further that, he managed to identify the assailants by the aid of the torches which they were using. He told the Court that he saw Bahati, Nengo and Mashiri. They were dressed in different clothes. Mashiri was wearing a hat. Bahati had a long sleeve shirt. The event took long time as the assailants were removing the breast, private parts and the tongue of the deceased. 6 However, during cross examination he testified that the alleged crime lasted for a shorter period of about one to two minutes. He explained that the torch used by the assailants had bright light and he knew the assailants because they were their in-laws (waashi) whom they used to visit regularly. He explained that, the relationship between their two families was caused by the deceased's son Maneno who married the daughter of Mwala (third accused) who died in 2012. After her death there was misunderstanding between the two families as the said Mwala accused the deceased in this case for killing his daughter through witchcraft. He identified the accused persons in the dock by their names. He stated further that, when the assailants were cutting the deceased he continued to raise alarm which made one of the assailants to attack him and hit him with a stick on the head. After that he got confused and didn't know what was happening. Thereafter one Mateso and others took him inside the house where he stayed until the following morning. At about 12:00 noon of the following day the police officers arrived at the scene and started to interrogate people. He said that he told the police officers that the person who killed the deceased were Bahati, Nengo and Mashiri. He explained further that on 7 the day of the alleged killing his father was not around as he went to look for a plot to buy at a place called Bwanga on 30/1/2017. His father was planning to relocate to Bwanga to avoid misunderstanding between him and Mwala who was accusing his family of killing his daughter by witchcraft. He informed the Court that he told his father in the morning that he identified individuals who killed the deceased. At the closure of the prosecution case, the court ruled that all accused persons had a case to answer and invited each accused to defend himself. The first accused, Bahati s/o Abel @ Bunanze, testified on oath as DW1. He recounted that, he was arrested on the night of 7/2/2017 at home at Ihanga village, Chato District together with his father, Mwala Bonanze who is the third accused. Thereafter, the police arrested Mr. Nengo and his father and they were all taken by car to Chato police station. They arrived at Chato police station at night where he was kept in one lock up as Nengo whereas his father and Nengo's father were locked in another lock up. Inside the lock up, he saw Martin Kagoma and Maneno Kagoma who told them that they were accused of killing their mother, 8 Valentina Mabula (the deceased) and beaten by police. Mr. Martin Kagoma had injuries in his joints and other areas of his body. He explained that, on the following day, which is 7/2/2017, at about 2.00hrs Nengo was taken by police officers from the lock up and later brought back in the escort of police officers while crying. Thereafter, he was also taken by police officers to another room where he was interrogated, beaten, tortured and asked to explain how he was involved in the killing of the deceased but he told them that he did not commit any crime. Then they took him back to the lock - up where he slept until the following day, that is, 8/2/2017. On 8/2/2017 at about 16.00hrs he was taken again from the lock - up to another room where he was tortured and asked to explain what happened but he told them that he did not know anything he was not responsible. One police officer by the name of Davy told a police officer who was hitting him to stop assaulting him as she might kill him and asked her to take some written papers. She took the said papers and started to copy what was written in those papers then she asked him to sign on the said papers which she had copied. He refused to sign but they continued 9 beating him. Then he signed the said papers and they took him back to the lock - up. On 9/2/2017 at about 14.00hrs he was taken from the lock up together with Mr. Nengo and went to Kamnyole village at Mr. Kaguma's house where they found more than four women. While there, they were asked to explain what happed about the death of the deceased but they said that they did not commit the alleged offence but the police officers continued beating them. Thereafter, they were taken to their home at the village of Ihanga where the police searched their house. Later the village Chairman arrived and complained to the police for searching the house before his arrival. The police did not find anything in their search. He stated that he was not involved in the alleged killing. He disputed Martin's testimony that he saw them committing the offence. He also doubted Martin's testimony that Mr. Kagoma Nyantongwa went to buy land at Bwanga in order to stay away from their family and said if the intention was to stay far from their family why they would buy land at Bwanga which is closer to their family at the village of Ihanga. He stated that, the circumstances of the alleged absence of Mr. Kagoma Nyatongwa from his family on the night of the alleged 10 killing are also suspicious as he could be involved in the alleged killing and pretended to get away from his family to allow what he knew was going to happen. The second accused, Nengo Kwangu testified as DW2 and informed the Court that, on 31/1/2017 he woke up in the morning at Buziku and went to Ihanga for agricultural activities at about 7.00 hrs. He finished his activities at about 17:00hrs and went back home at Ihanga village. He went back to his place at Buziku by bicycle where he arrived at about 21:00hrs. He stated further that, he was arrested on the night of 6/2/2017 and sent to Buziku police station where he joined Bahati Abel and Mwala Bunanze who were in the police car then taken to Chato police station where they were locked up. He saw Maneno Kagoma and Martin Kagoma in the lock up. On 7/2/2022 at 14.00hrs he was taken by a police officer to a separate room where he was informed that he was accused of killing valentine Mabula. He denied to have participated in the alleged killing. He was beaten and taken back to the lock-up. li He testified further that, on 8/2/2022 at lO.OOhrs he was taken by one Masinde to the investigation room for interrogation. He denied to have been involved in the alleged killing but the police started beating him again and took him back to the lock up. On 9/2/2017 the police officers took him and Bahati Abel and asked them to take them to a place where the alleged crime took place. He told them that he did not know the house where the crime took place. Then they were taken to the house of Kagoma where they got out of the car and asked to sit down. Then OCCID called people to a place where we were and told them to tell people that they were the ones who committed the alleged offence. They refused to do that and the police officer started to beat them. Thereafter they were taken to Mr. Mwala Bunanze's house where the police searched the house then they left to Chato police station. On 12/2/2017 Martin Kagoma and Maneno Kagoma were discharged from remand custody. On 13/2/2012 he was charged with murder of Valentine Mabula. On his part, the third accused Mwala Bunanze testified as DW3. He informed the Court that, he was arrested on the night of 6/2/2017 at the village of Ihanga. Thereafter, the police asked him to take them to the Mr. Nengo's house. He told them that he didn't know where he was but he 12 knew where his father Kwangu was residing and took them to Kwangu's house. The police took Kwangu together with him to Buziku police station where they took kwangu out of the car to Nengo's house. Later on they came back to the car with Kwangu and Nengo and proceeded to Chato police station where they were kept in the police lock up. In the lock upz he saw Mr. Kagoma Nyantongwa who told him that he was responsible with cutting of his wife together with his son. He told Mr. Kagoma that he didn't know why he was arrested. He also saw Mr. Maneno Kagoma and Martin Kagoma in the lock up during lunch time. They were not moving properly. They were beaten by the police. They told him that they were responsible for killing the deceased. On 9/2/2017 he was removed from lock - up at around 15:00hrs and taken to another room where he was beaten, tortured and threatened to be killed by beatings and forced to sign some papers by three policemen. He told the Court that he knew the deceased Valentine Mabula, because her son Maneno Kagoma was married to his daughter Joyce Abel who died in 2012 at Sengerema Hospital. He stated that he was the one who took her daughter to hospital when she got sick. He took her to Bwanga Hospital and later to Sengerema Hospital where she died in 2012. 13 He testified that, the deceased Valentine Mabula died in 2017. When he heard about her death, he was sick but his wife and neighbours went to the funeral. He denied to have been involved in the killing of the deceased and prayed to be discharged because he was not involved in this crime. After the defence case was closed, the learned counsel for the second accused prayed to make his final submissions and the Court allowed him to proceed as prayed. The State Attorney and the counsel for the rest of the accused persons opted not to make final submissions. At the start of his submissions, the learned counsel referred the Court to section 110 of the Evidence Act which requires that whoever alleges the existence of certain facts must prove that those facts exist. He argued that, in criminal cases the prosecution have a duty to prove the existence of the alleged facts beyond reasonable doubt as required under section 3(2)(a) of the Evidence Act. He maintained that, the role of the defence is to raise reasonable doubt since the accused is not convicted based on the weakness of his defence. To buttress his argument, he referred the Court to the case of Christina Kale and Rwekaza Benard vs Republic TLR (1992) at page 302. Having said that, he invited the Court to consider whether in the present case the prosecution managed to prove their case as required by 14 the law. He was of the views that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the second accused for the following reasons:- First, he submitted that, the prosecution's case is based on very weak identification of the accused. He argued that, according to the evidence adduced, the alleged killing took place at night. PW3 and PW4 proved that there was darkness at the scene of crime. Both of them testified that they used torchlight which implies that there was either total darkness or the light was not enough to allow clear visibility. He noted that, the testimony of PW4 indicated that the solar lamp used by the deceased in trying to identify the assailants did not help her to identify the assailants because she was attacked and cut by the said assailants before she could get hold of the said solar lamp. Further to that, he observed that, PW4 informed the court that the assault to the deceased lasted for a shorter period of about one to two minutes and further that both PW4 and others who were at the scene ran away after being invaded by the assailants. He also noted that, there is no evidence which can explain the intensity of light at the scene of crime which could help in the identification of the accused. He pointed out at PW4 did not specify the distance between the scene of crime and the place where he went to hide after fleeing from the scene of crime. 15 He submitted further that, according to the testimony of PW4, the assailants flashed the torchlight to his face and to the deceased who had fallen down. Hence, he argued that PW4 was not able to see properly because he must have been blinded by the torchlight which was flashed to his face. He also explained that, PW4 did not give physical features of the 2nd accused in his description of the accused persons. He argued that, even if the witness is familiar with the person he claims to have identified, the requirement is that he should describe the person he saw at the scene. To support his argument, he referred the Court to the case of Mohamed Alhui vs Rex (1942) 9 EACA. He insisted that, failure to give description of the second accused means he was not identified at the scene of crime. The learned counsel submitted also on the question of the delay to mention the accused persons. He argued that, although PW4 alleged that he identified the persons who committed the alleged crime at night, he did not mention the said persons throughout the night. He referred the Court to the case of Wangiti Marwa Mwita and others vs Republic (2002) TLR at page 39 and 42 where the Court held that: 16 "the ability of a witness to name a suspect at the earliest opportunity is an all-important assurance of his reliability, in the same way as unexplained delay or complete failure to do so should put a prudent Court to inquiry" He stated that, in the present case PW4 did not inform the court why he failed to name the persons whom he claimed to have identified either to the police who arrived at the scene on the fateful night or to the individuals who responded to the raised alarm on that night. He argued that, PW4's explanation that he did not mention the names of the persons he identified because he was confused lacks merit because when the people responded to the alarm and went to the scene of crime he was still outside and he talked to them. He argued further that, PW4 also refused to go to the hospital and suggested how he should be treated which means he was not confused as he claims because he was even able to know the nature of treatment he needed. He referred the Court to various decisions which expounds on the principle of identification such as:- Baya Lusana vs Republic, Cr. Appeal. No. 593/2017 CAT at Mwanza; Potian Joseph vs Republic, Cr. Appeal No. 200/2015, CAT at Arusha, and Lucas Venance @ Wandu and another vs Republic, Cr. Appeal No. 392/2018. 17 Secondly, he submitted on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses (PW3 and PW4). He argued that, PW3 and PW4 were not credible witnesses since their testimonies in court were different from their police statements which they recorded immediately after the alleged crime and on matters which goes to the root of the case. He also argued that, the testimony of PW3 and PW4 were contradictory. He clarified that while PW4 testified that he met PW3 at the scene of crime, PW3 denied to have seen PW4 at the scene. Further to that, PW3 testified that PW4 was taken to a nearby hospital on the night of the alleged killing while PW4 denied to have been taken to hospital on that night. He also pointed out that while PW3 said solar lamp was fixed in the house, PW4 said the solar lamp was placed down at the fireplace. Further to that, he noted that while PW4 said he saw the deceased's tongue being cut by the assailants, none of the prosecution witnesses said the deceased's tongue was cut including the Doctor who conducted post - mortem examination. On the basis of the noted contradictions he implored the Court to consider the said witnesses not credible and their testimony should not reliable to enter conviction. He also urged the Court to consider the noted 18 contradictions as fatal as they go to the root of the case and should be resolved for the benefit of the accused persons by discharging them. Thirdly, he submitted that there is no corroboration of the testimony of PW2 regarding what the first accused (co-accused) told him against the third accused. He maintained that, the law requires that evidence of co - accused which incriminates the other accused must be corroborated but that testimony was not corroborated either by independent witness or any exhibits tendered by the prosecution and therefore contravenes the provisions of section 33 (2) of the Evidence Act. Fourthly, he submitted that, the prosecution failed to call important and necessary witnesses to prove their case and implored the Court to draw an adverse inference on that failure. He maintained that, although section 143 of the Evidence Act does not require a specific number of witnesses to prove a case, the prosecution is expected to bring all important and necessary witnesses to prove their case. He argued that, in the present case the Republic failed to call the investigator and the police officer who arrested the accused persons. These were important witnesses to establish why they arrested the accused persons and not anybody else or who specifically mentioned the accused 19 persons and what physical features descriptions did he use to describe the accused persons. He argued further that, the other important person is the father of PW4 and the police officer who interrogated PW4 for the first time. These were allegedly the first people to be told by PW4 about the individuals who identified the accused persons at the scene of crime. The other important witnesses are the young siblings of PW4 who were together with him during the alleged attack which led to the death of the deceased. They would help to inform the court what they saw on the fateful night. To support his argument, he referred the Court to the case of Azizi Abdallah vs Republic (1991) TLR at page 71). With regards to the testimony of DW2, he submitted that the evidence adduced satisfied the requirement of the law in raising reasonable doubt on matters which goes to the root of the case. He argued that, DW2 informed the court that he was not at the scene of crime and the Republic did not ask questions in that regard. DW2 also raised doubt in identification by showing that there were other individuals who were arrested in connection to the alleged crime which implies that the evidence collected did not point specifically to individuals who committed the alleged offence. Thus, he prayed that the second accused be acquitted from these charges. 20 It is basic that in a case of murder like this one, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person caused death of the deceased by committing unlawful act or omission with intent to cause death. In the present case, there is no doubt that the deceased died unnatural death as shown in exhibit Pl and the testimony of PW1 which indicates that cause of death was due to "Haemorrhagic Shock due to Multiple Cut wounds." The significant question for determination is whether evidence adduced is sufficient to establish that the accused persons committed an act which resulted to the said death. The prosecution in this case relied heavily on the evidence of visual identification of the accused person by PW4 who testified that he identified the first and second accused at the scene of crime. To act on this evidence this court must make sure that all possibilities of mistaken identity are eliminated and the Court is satisfied that the evidence before it is absolutely watertight (see R vs Eric Sebwato (1960) E.A. 174; Mugo vs R (1966)E.A. 124 and Waziri Aman vs R (1979). Before accepting PW4's evidence of identification this Court has examined closely the circumstances in which the alleged identification arose and made a finding that, although it is not disputed that PW4 knew 21 the accused persons before the alleged murder, evidence adduced shows that, the alleged murder took place at night and there was bad lighting at the scene of crime as testified by PW3 and PW4 that there was darkness at the scene of crime and both of them had to use torchlight because of lack of clear visibility at the scene of crime. The intensity of light from the solar lamp which was present at the scene of crime was not sufficient for proper identification as testified by PW3 that he had to use the torchlight to identify the deceased at the scene of crime due to poor lighting from the solar lamp. PW4 also indicated that the solar lamp could not be used to identify the perpetrators because they attacked the deceased before she could hold the said lamp in an attempt to identify them. The Court has also considered that the torchlight flashed to the face of PW4 by the perpetrators could not help him to identify those who directed the said torchlight to him. With regards to the time which PW4 had the accused persons under observation and the distance at which he observed them, this Court noted that PW4's testimony informed the court during cross-examination that the assault to the deceased lasted for a shorter period of about one to two minutes and further that the people who were at the scene ran away after 22 being invaded by the assailants. PW4 did not specify the distance between the scene of crime and the place where he went to hide after fleeing from the scene of crime in order to determine if there was possibility of clear visibility given the circumstances at the scene of crime. The Court has also considered that although PW4 testified that he saw the first and second accused at the scene, his description of the accused persons which he gave to this Court for the first time is scanty and points to the first and third accused whom he testified that were wearing a long sleeve shirt and a hat respectively. This Court is in agreement with the counsel for the second accused that, there was no clear explanation from the prosecution evidence on why PW4 failed to name the persons whom he claimed to have identified either to the police who arrived at the scene of crime on the night of the alleged killing or to the people who responded to the raised alarm on that night. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the evidence of identification presented by the prosecution left a lot of doubt as to whether the accused persons were identified at the scene as the ones who killed the deceased. 23 As to the testimony of PW2 that she recorded the statement of the first accused who informed her that he was asked by his father Mr Bunanze to kill the deceased and that he committed the alleged offence together with his two uncles (mjomba and Baba Mdogo), although the cautioned statement of the first accused was not admitted in evidence, the Court is aware that, oral confessions made by a suspect before a reliable witness may be sufficient by itself to enter conviction against the said suspects if the Court is satisfied about its truth. However, where the said confession is disputed, as it is in this case, it is a rule of prudence that the Court should be cautious of acting on such a confession unless it is corroborated in material particulars. Unfortunately, in this case there is no evidence to corroborate the alleged confession of the first accused and the prosecution has presented no evidence to establish its veracity. The Court is also aware that evidence of a co-accused will not normally support a conviction of the co-accused unless it is corroborated. In the circumstances, this Court finds it unsafe to rely on the alleged uncorroborated oral confession of the first accused. On the question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses, this Court is in agreement with the submissions by the learned counsel for 24 the second accused that PW3 and PW4 were not credible witnesses. During trial, when confronted with the statements which they recorded at the police station immediately after the alleged killing, both PW3 and PW4 were skeptical and in denial of their statements on matters of material substance and insisted on different facts from the ones recorded in their statements. The two witnesses' demeanor also undermined their credibility as they appeared uncertain and evasive. The testimony of PW3 and PW4 also contradicts each other on a number of material substances. While PW3 informed the Court that he did not find PW4 at the scene of crime because he was taken to hospital, PW4 denied to have been taken to hospital after being injured by the alleged perpetrators and insisted that he met PW3 at the scene of crime on the night of the alleged killing. Similarly, while the evidence of PW4 indicates that the deceased's tongue was cut and removed by the perpetrators, none of the witnesses including the Doctor who testified as PW1 testified to that effect. In the circumstances, I find the contradictions in the testimony of PW3 and PW4 who are material witnesses in this case to have a negative effect on the credibility and reliability of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. 25 The Court is also in agreement with the learned counsel for the second accused that, failure of the prosecution to call material witnesses who could testify on the investigation of the case, the arrest of the accused persons in connection to this offence and the individuals who were present at the time of the alleged murder as well as lack of reasons for the alleged failure have an adverse effect against the prosecution's case and the Court draws an adverse inference to that effect. Lastly, the Court has also given deserving consideration to the evidence adduced by DW1, DW2 and DW3. Although none of the accused persons issued a notice of their intention to rely on the defence of alibi under section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Act which has the effect of reducing the weight attached to that alibi, the evidence adduced by the accused persons regarding the other individuals who were arrested in connection to this offence raises doubt on the alleged identification of the accused persons at the scene of crime. Accordingly, I find the evidence adduced by the accused persons to have satisfied the requirement of the law in raising reasonable doubt on their involvement to the alleged crime. The Court has also considered evidence adduced to the effect that the family of the accused persons had grudges with that of the deceased however, in the absence of evidence connecting the accused persons with 26 the alleged killing mere suspicions however grave cannot form the basis of conviction. That said, I find no sufficient evidence to support conviction against all accused persons. Consequently, I acquit all accused persons of the charges of murder filed against them under section 235 of the Criminal Procedure Act and order that they should be released from remand custody forthwith unless held for other lawful causes. It is so ordered.