Criminal Session Case 40505 of 2023 Judgment MrishaJ

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (SUMBAWANGA DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT SUMBAWANGA CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 40505 OF 2023 REPUBLIC VERSUS LINUS S/O VICENT @SHABANI 24th & 28 March, 2025 MRISHA, J. The accused person Linus Vicent @Shabani could not find himself been apprehended, charged and thereby arraigned before this court had he abided to the elders’ common saying, 'haiira hasara' which literally means 'anger brings loss' His unlawful act of killing his own child namely John Linus Vicent due to matrimonial conflicts with his wife, has led him to regret for unlawfully taking away the life of his innocent child. Consequently, he is now facing the charge of Murder contrary to section 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022 henceforth the Penal Code. While the former provision of the law creates the homicide offence of murder, 1 the later provides for the penalty to be meted against whoever is found guilty of committing such offence. It provides categorically, that: "977. A person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death." And, section 26 (1) of the Penal Code, provides inter alia that: "66. - (a) When a person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he shall suffer death by hanging" Looking at the above provisions of the law ;tal clear that the legal consequence to be suffered by any person, is found to be guilty of the offence of murder, is nothing but to be sentenced to suffer death by hanging. That is the total loss the accused person herein ought to have known before deciding to cause death of his own child just because of dispute which would have otherwise been settled through other means. The members of the society also need to be reminded of the legal consequences for taking law into one’s hands by causing deaths of other persons unlawfully. Despite that, since Article 13 (6) (b) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 has directed among other things, that no person charged with a criminal offence shall be treated as guilty of the offence until proved guilty of that offence, the prosecution Republic is duty bound to satisfy the 2 court beyond any reasonable doubt, that the above named accused person committed the offence of murder with which he stands charged. The above position is fortified by both the statutory provisions and various principles developed by the courts of records in our country and in other foreign jurisdictions. For instance, section 110 (1) (2) of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E. 2022 (the Evidence Act) provides that: "110. Burden ofproof (1) Whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden ofproof lies on that person." Again, section 3 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act provides that: "(2) A fact is said to be proved when— (a) in criminal matters, except where any statute or other law provides otherwise, the court is satisfied by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the fact exists..." The above provisions of the law entail that not only that the one who alleges existence of any fact in a criminal case (the accuser) is bound to prove existence of such fact like for instance murder of the deceased person, but 3 also such proof must be beyond any reasonable doubt. (See: Furaha Michael vs The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2010 (HCT at Bukoba, unreported) and Uganda vs Hussein Hassan Agade & 12 Others, Criminal Session Case No. 0001 of 2010 (High Court of Uganda at Kampala, International Crimes Division, unreported). Reverting back to the matter at hand, it is on record that the offence of murder the accused person stands charged with was committed on 14th August, 2023 at Tambaluka village, within Nkasi District in Rukwa Region. When the charge was read over and explained to him, the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, the prosecution Republic brought five witnesses and tendered a post mortem examination report and sketch map of the crime scene which were admitted as exhibits P1 and P2, respectively, with a view of discharging their legal duty which is proving the allegations against the said accused beyond reasonable doubt. Pertaining to defence case, the accused person was the only defence witness who testified under oath and no documentary or physical was tendered by him to support his defence. Generally, he regretted for what he did and prayed to the Court to give him a lenient punishment as he did not intend to commit the offence of murder. At the hearing of the prosecution case, the prosecution Republic called Adamu Kanyuka who is a peasant and resident of Tambaluka Village 4 @Majengo Nkasi District, Rukwa Region and who testified as PW1. In the course of his testimony, he mainly narrated that on 13th August, 2023 around noon hours, he was with his wife carrying and collecting maize at his farm, then the accused person came with his child and asked for food. Then, PW1 instructed his wife to prepare some food and gave it to him. Meanwhile, PW1 started interrogating the accused person. During interrogation, the accused responded that they wanted to go to Majengo to the mother of his son and his father-in-law, Mr. John. Hence, he just wanted to be directed away to Majengo. The PW1 directed accused to the person who was building a house in order to be shown the way to Majengo. PW1 returned to the farm and the accused went with his son who was a head walking, but PW1 did not know the accused person before. He further narrated that, on 14th August, 2023 around 2100 hours, the accused person came back alone without his son. He came for sleeping over and on the next day he wanted to return to his home. When he came without his son, PW1 interrogated him about his son’s whereabouts and the accused responded that he left him with his mother. Immediately, PW1 called his son Pius Adam Kanyuka, PW2 and asked him if the accused reached at Majengo and, PW2 replied that the accused did not reach there. Thereafter, PW2 went to PW1‘s house with Sumba and Kamongo, 5 found accused person sleeping, then they tied him up with a rope and started interrogating about his son and finally the accused replied that his son died at the river. They went to the scene of crime and accused person directed them to the scene, it was at river Mashete, the accused showed them the deceased‘s body which was kept in the cave being covered with clothes. PW2 called Village Executive Officer (VEO), who testified as PW3, and informed him on the incident; the VEO instructed them to stay guarding the suspect until the following day. He further narrated that, on 15th August, 2025 about 0700 hours, the police officers came and arrested accused person. The second evidence came from Pius Adam Kanyuka, PW2. His testimony supplements what was stated by PW1. He testified that on 13th August, 2023 around 0500 hours, he was at home, Tambaluka village, with Justine Kasonso @ Kamongo, a mason, when he was at the site the accused came with his son of about 3 years old, and they were passing on the way to Tambaluka center. He asked him to allow them to stay and sleep at his home because he was tired. On the following day, before he left at PW2‘s home, the accused helped PW2 to give mason the soil for house construction while his son was playing with other children. He then left at PW2‘s home around 1100 to 1200 hours. PW2 also told the court that on 2100 hours, he was called by Eliza Kanyuka who 6 informed him that the accused came back to PW1‘s house without his son; he then went to his father‘s house with Justine and Sumba and found the accused sleeping, they he woken and interrogated him about his son whereabouts, the accused told them his son passed away after reaching at the river Mashete. Not only that, but in addition to what he had stated above, PW2 testified that the accused person directed him and his fellows to the crime scene and they found his son in the cave lying on the back (spine position) and covered by clothes through his body. He saw the deceased body with a rope being tightened on his neck. Then, the PW2 informed VEO PW3 about the incident, and the police officers came to the scene crime and continued with investigation. He assisted the police officers in drawing a sketch map of the crime scene. The accused was arrested and the deceased body was handed over to the relatives for burial and acting as Village Executive Officer (VEO), his duties are to maintain peace and security in the village, to protect persons and their properties and assure the village income and its expenditure are safe. On 15th August, 2023 around 0005 hours, he received a call from PW2 who informed him about the 7 incident, and then he instructed PW2 to continue holding the accused until morning. The incident was reported to Chala Police Station. About 1300 hours, the police officer, Ward Executive Officer (WEO) and medical doctor from District Hospital went to the crime scene and found PW1, PW2, Kamongo and Mzee Sumpa with accused. He also found deceased’s body of a child in the cave, lying on the back and covered with clothes. The body was removed from the cave and put on the shade of the tree, then they uncovered the body, they saw a rope which was rotated on its neck and thereafter, the accused was tightened with rope on his hands and feet. The prosecution Republic also paraded Dr. Englebert Kapembwa who testified as PW4, to the effect that he is a medical doctor whose main duties are to treat indoor and outdoor patients, to conduct minor and large operations, to provide public sensitization on health issues and perform any other duties assigned by his Head of Department. He has ten years’ working experience. On 15th August, 2023 when he was at his work place, he was assigned to conduct Post mortem examination of deceased body at Tambaluka village, the head of investigation team passed through at his work place and picked him to the crime scene. They reached at the village about 1200 hours; from the village to the scene, it took them 15 minutes. 8 That upon arriving at the scene of crime on the same material date, they found the deceased body of a male child of about 3 years old whose name he was told, was John Linus @ Vicent. PW4 inspected the body and observed that on his neck, there was a cloth rope being tied up around his neck and he then conducted a thorough examination and observed that the cause of deceased’s death was due to suffocation. After examining the body, PW4 filled the Post mortem examination report. Upon completion of his testimony, PW4 urged the court to admit the said report as an exhibit. No objection was raised against such document. Hence, it was admitted as Exhibit P1. The last prosecution witness was Elisante Jonas Kitila who testified as PW5 describing himself as a police officer, OC-CID of Nkasi District, his duties are to protect civilians and their properties, to conduct patrol, investigation and supervising subordinates in performing their duties. On 15th August, 2023 around 0800 hours, when he was at his office, he received a call from PW3 who informed him about the incident of death which occurred in his village. Thereafter, PW5 instructed WP Detective Corporal Grace to take Corona Form "B" from the Magistrate. The form was taken and instructed Dr. Englebert to conduct the post mortem examination. PW5 left with his investigation team and a medical doctor to the village where they reached at around 1300 hours. However, due to the bad road condition, they 9 got out from the motor vehicle and picked a motorcycle. However, they reached to an area and left a motorcycle, then walked by foot to the crime scene. He further narrated that, he found villagers and among them, were PW1, PW2 and other villagers. They were informed that the deceased body was in the cave. PW5 gave instructions that the body to be removed from the cave and put under the tree shade. Moreover, the PW5 instructed the police officer with Force Number G. 3202 D/C Muhidini to draw a sketch map and hand it over to him. He also witnessed PW4 while conducting the Post mortem examination. The deceased’s body had no wounds, but on his neck, there was a rope tied. He was informed by medical doctor that the cause of death of deceased was due to suffocation which resulted from being tied up on his neck. PW5 arrested the accused person and went with him to Namanyere Police Station for further investigation. In the court, the sketch map was sought to be tendered by PW5 as an exhibit, the prayer which was not objected by the adverse party, and the court admitted and marked it as Exhibit P2. That marked the end of the prosecution evidence upon which the court considered and found to have established a prima facie case against the 10 accused person as far as the allegations of murder of John Linus Vicent against him are concerned. Having found that the prosecution has sufficiently established a case against the accused person to require him to make his defence, the accused was called to defend himself and opted to testify under oath. He testified as DW1, but he neither called his witnesses to testify in his favour, nor tendered any documentary exhibit. In his defence, he narrated that, he was living at Kasansa village within Katavi Region with his wife and four children namely Hannah Linus, Neema Linus, John Linus and Robert Linus, his wife’s name is Paskali Bruno Kongi. Before that they were living at an area called Inyonga. He had a good relationship with his wife, but later their relationship turned sour when they shifted to Kasansa as his wife started coming home late whilst insulting him and once, he asked her why she coming home late, she replied that she came from the local bar and from her sister-in-law. On 12th August, 2023 around 0000 hours, DW1 narrated that he was at home sleeping, his wife came back home and woken him up and started interviewing him where she came from and she replied, she was with her sister-in-law at the local bar. He further narrated that, his wife started insulting him by telling him that he is not a man and the said children are not 11 his, so he should not tell her to come home early. She was drunkard, and she said she was with her concubine whose name is Jacob. Moreover, DW1 continued narrated that Jacob who was his wife‘s concubine, assaulted him with mace on his head and that when he chased and caught him, suddenly his wife came out and beat him on head using mace. He let him go and his wife run away. He then went home and picked John; his intention was to return to Inyonga to avoid more conflicts with his wife. He added that he advised his wife to change her behavior, but she did not listen to him, she brought her concubine to his home place, and he felt bad. He decided to leave with John because; he was a male child while the remaining children were females. Another male child who was only one year old was taken by her mother. When he went to Inyonga, he passed by at the house of PW1 at Tambaluke village, he was tired, and it was 13th August, 2023. His aim was to ask for the direction to Inyonga. Then PW1 gave him some food and showed him a direction to Inyonga. He started his journey to Inyonga with his son, who was walking forward, but later his child requested to him to return him to her mother claiming that his mother had told him that DW1 is not his father. DW1 further narrated that due to those words, he felt bad and found himself killing his child after recalling the words of his mother. That after killing the 12 deceased, he kept his body aside the big stone near the canyon and returned to PW1 whom he requested for permission to sleep at his home so that he could leave on the next day. That the son of PW1 who is PW2, interrogated him about the son and later DW1 told him what had transpired. Then he was arrested and had his hands being tied up. Those who arrested him told him to wait for the police to come. The police came and he informed them what happened and the reasons why he killed his son. Then, the defence side closed its case leaving this court to make its decision. The main issue before this court is whether or not the accused did cause the death of his son one John Linus Vicent and, if the answer to that issue will be in affirmative, then the next for determination will be whether he did so with malice aforethought. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased person’s cause of death was due to suffocation and the death occurred on 15th August, 2023, that is stated in the Post mortem examination report which was admitted as Exhibit P1 without any objection. The prosecution evidence reveals that the deceased body was found with a tightened rope around his neck. This evidence was not challenged during cross examination which tells that the deceased died unnatural death. Thus, if any evidence were needed to prove whether the deceased died and his death was unnatural, then it is my 13 settle view that the foregoing reasons suffice to prove that the deceased was died unnatural death. Still, the question is who killed deceased person. The prosecution witnesses in their testimonies did not testify to have seen the accused person killing the deceased, rather in their evidence PW1, PW2 and PW3 said they saw the accused person with his son (deceased) walking and the deceased condition was healthier. However, the prosecution linked the accused with the deceased death by his conducts and oral confession after being interrogated by them. As regards the evidence against the accused person, it is a principle of law that for the court to find accused person guilty of the offence of murder, the available evidence must connect the accused person with the said death. This position was stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Mohamed Said Matula v. Republic [1995] T.L.R. 3 whereby the Court held that: - 'UJpon a charge of murder being preferred the onus is always on the prosecution to prove not only the death, but also the link between the said death and the accused; the onus never shift away from the prosecution and no duty is cast on the appelant to establish his innocence". 14 To prove the offence of murder against the accused, the prosecution in this case called a total number of five witnesses. There is no doubt that the prosecution relied on oral confession as there was nobody who witnessed when the offence was committed. In the case of Posolo Wilson@ Malyego v Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 2015 the Court gave guidance as to when oral confession can be reliable. In that case it was stated inter alia that; "It is settled that on oral confessional made by suspect before or in the presence of reliable witnesses, be they civilian or not, may be sufficient by itself to found conviction against the suspect". Also, in Ndalahwa Shilanga and Another v Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 2008 (unreported), the Court of Appeal emphasized that the oral admissions or confessions are admissible in certain circumstances if extreme care is taken before taking them or their face value. It is also important to bear in mind that such oral confession will be valid if at the time when the suspect stated such words/or made such confession imputed to him, he was a free agent. (See: Republic vs Ally Othumani and Others, Criminal Session Case (HCT at Dar es Salaam, unreported). In this case, according to the evidence of PW1, the accused person confessed to have killed the deceased and showed the area where he had kept his body. 15 PW1 said, the accused directed them to the crime scene and they found deceased body was lying down being covered with clothes; it was kept in the cave. He guarded the accused at the crime scene until the following day when police officers, medical doctor and VEO came arrested him. From PW1‘s evidence it is clear that the accused did confess directly to him. As to PW2, his testimony was that he was called by Eliza Kanyuka and informed that the accused came back to PW1‘s house without his son. He went to his father’s house with Justine and Sumpa and found accused sleeping, he then woken and interrogated him, and the accused told PW2 that the deceased died at river Mashete. He tied up the accused with ropes and asked him to show him where he had kept his son. They were directed by the accused to scene crime and found the deceased died in the cave. The deceased was covered by clothes. This evidence was not controverted neither by learned counsel for the accused person, nor by accused person. If I may add, there is evidence of PW5, OC-CID of Nkasi District whose name is Elisante Jonas Kilata who visited the scene of crime. At the scene of crime, he instructed a Police Officer to draw a sketch map and he witnessed the Medical Doctor while conducting the Post mortem examination of the deceased‘s body. PW5 also said that in interrogating accused person, the accused confessed to have killed his son by using a rope made from a piece of Khanga cloth. He 16 arrested him and went with him to Namanyere Police Station for further interrogation. This evidence was not challenged by the accused person when he was testifying before this court. Having examined the said oral confessions made to PW1, PW2 and PW3, it is my finding that there were credible witnesses who truthfully testified on what they heard and witnessed thus, their confession was valid, as it was stated in the case of Geofrey Sichizya v. D.P.P [2020] TLR 323 whereby the Court of Appeal held that; "Orii confession or confessions are admissible in certain circumstance if extreme care is taken before taking them on their face value. It is also important to note that such oral confession would be valid if at the time when the suspect stated such words/ or make such confession imputed to him, he was a free agent . In his defense, regarding oral confession of the prosecution witnesses, the accused during defence hearing admit to kill his son after his son claimed that his mother had told him the accused person is not his father. He further narrated on how he performed his act of killing the deceased by saying that he recalled the insulting words of his child‘s mother and the uttered 17 deceased‘s words and found that he had to kill the deceased and keep his body in the cave, then return to PW1‘s house. The question I have to ask myself is whether the court can take it into account in deciding the guiltiness of accused whose supports the prosecution case. The Court of Appeal when performing its duty, faced with the same situation in the case of David Gamata and Another v Republic [2015] T.L.R. 206 and resolved that; "We take it to be one of the settled principles of law that ifan accused person in the course of his defence gives evidence which carries the prosecution case further, the court will be entitled to take into account such evidence of the accused in deciding on the question of his guilt". From the abovementioned position, I am of the settled view that the confession/admission of the accused person made before a Court during defence hearing is considered to be strong evidence against the accused person and is admissible as evidence in Court proceedings. It is worthy to note that, the accused when he was testifying on examination in chief said that he regrets for what he was did and he kept regretting until the day he testified in Court and implored this Court to give him a lenient punishment, because he was not intending to commit such offence of murder. 18 From above evidence, I am convinced to believe that the accused person is the one who killed his son (deceased person). Hence, I find him to be responsible for causing the death of the said deceased person. The remaining main question to be resolved by this Court is whether the accused, killed the deceased with malice aforethought. The law regulating malice aforethought is found under section 200 of the Penal Code [Cap 16 R.E 2022]. What may be gleaned from such provision of the law and various authorities, is that malice aforethought is inferred from actions leading to the unlawful act of killing since it is rare that the attacker will declare his intention to cause the death or grievous harm of another person. It has been held that the type of weapon used, the amount of force applied, part or parts of body on which the blow or blows are directed at or inflicted on, the number of blows although one blow may be sufficient for this purpose, the kind of injuries inflicted, the attacker’s conduct before and after killing, are factors that can be used to ascertain malice aforethought on the part of the accused person. (See: Mark Kasimiri v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2017 [2020] TZCA 170 (24 March, 2020). In light of the above position, applying it to the present case where is undisputed that the deceased was killed by being strangled with a tied rope on his neck, which is a volatile and sensitive part of the human body; it is a 19 clear indication of malice aforethought. However, the accused in his defence pleaded defence of provocation, by saying that he was provoked due to words uttered by his wife denying him to be biological father of deceased child coupled with those uttered by his child. The defence of provocation is stated under section 201 of the Penal Code which provides that: —'When a person who unlawfully kills another under circumstances which, but for the provisions of this section would constitute murder, does the act which causes death in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation as defined in section 202, and before there is time for his passion to cool, he is guilty of manslaughter only." From the provisions of law above, two elements must be proved by the defence side for them to benefit from the defence of provocation. First, it has to be proved that the caused death of another person in the heat of passion caused by a sudden provocation and, two; that, there was no time for the heat of passion to cool. Logically, it cannot be possible for the provoked person to make rational judgment when he is still under heat of passion and, I think that is why the provisions of section 201 comes into play to set a threshold for such kind of 20 defence to stand; otherwise, people would be misusing that kind of defence in order to escape the penalty for the offence of murder. In his defence, accused narrated that on 12th August, 2023 around 0000 hours his wife comeback home from a local bar being drunkard and was with her concubine one Jacob, then started to utter insulting words denying to him to be the biological father of his deceased child, then he was thereafter beaten by his wife and concubine. He thus, decided to leave with deceased to Inyonga, but on the way he stopped at PW1‘s house whom he asked for some food and direction to Inyonga. He was given some food and shown the direction to Inyonga. Again, the accused went to PW2‘s house where he slept until the following day, on that day he helped PW2 to give Manson soil for construction, when PW2 prepared some food for him, he ate started his journey to Tambaluka center. When he was on way to Tambaluka, his son requested to be returned home to his mother and claimed that his mother had told him that he is not his real father. Having being told that, the accused felt bad and found himself killing him. It is the position of the law that, there are some words which in themselves may appear as innocent, but if they are looked at hindsight of what transpires, they are powerful dynamite sufficient to blow of the faculty of reasoning of 21 human minds. (See: Benjamin Mwansi v. R, (1992) TLR 85. However, those words are not enough, but there is something extra and that is sudden provocation. For it to stand, the defence side must prove/show that the act must be a suddenly provocation without time for heat of passion to cool down. In Said Kigodi@side v. R, Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2009 (unreported) it was held that: - —Wee are of the firm view that the defence of provocation is available to a ho kills at a spun of the moment in t eat of passion before he has time to cool down Back to our case, the abovementioned decision will guide this court in determining whether the defence of provocation raised by the accused person will stand. To deal with that issue, I will divide the scenario into two parts. First, the words uttered by accused’s wife at the time she came back home from local bar and secondly, the words uttered by deceased person before the accused. Regarding the words uttered by the accused‘ wife that he is not the biological father of deceased person and other insulting words uttered to him. Again, the act of coming with a concubine to the matrimonial home and started 22 beating the accused, these acts could cause provocation to the accused person, if the accused committed the offence of murder or grievous harm on the spot. However, the offence was not committed on the spot. Instead, the accused person left with his son (deceased) to avoid more problems with his wife. In the circumstances, the defence of provocation cannot stand. The second scenario, is on the words of deceased person; the words which were uttered on the following day after the accused and his son went to Tambaluka, when he was at Tambaluka, he stopped at PW1‘s house and slept until the following day when he also helped PW2‘s mason in construction work and before leaving there, he got some food and left. When they were walking, his son requested to him return him home, and he further added that his mother told him that the accused is not his real father. The accused recalled the previous insulting words of the deceased‘s mother and found that he had to kill him, that is when he went to the river Mashete with the deceased person and killed him there by strangling him with a piece of Khanga cloth. The question which remains is, did the words uttered by the deceased person cause a sudden provocation on the part of the accused? The answer to me, is definitely in the negative and, I will state reasons below. In Benjamin 23 Mwansi (supra) the Court of Appeal offers some kind of formula to determine the defence of provocation which I will use in determining that issue. The Court of Appeal held that: - "Thrre is something extra and that is suddenly provocation. We were to be mathematical and device a formula, we would say; killing by provocation is equal to circumstances which constitute murder plus sudden provocation without time of cooling down"[Emphasis is mine] Through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it appears that the deceased was found died and, on his neck, there was a rope tightening his neck. In my view, the process of finding a rope and using it to tighten the deceased’s neck, shows there some minutes or time on finding that rope and using it to strangle the deceased, was not a quick process and, it is therefore, apparent that there was enough time for the heat of passion to cool on the part of the accused person. Again, the conduct of the accused person after commission of the offence clearly suggests that the accused had malice of killing deceased; he hide the deceased‘s body in the cave and covered with clothes. That, shows he didn‘t want anyone to see the deceased‘s body. 24 Also, when he returned to PW1‘s house without the deceased, the accused lied that he left his son to his mother until he was interrogated when he unveiled that he killed the deceased and left his body at river Machete. Since, the accused did not act suddenly and as his conduct clearly shows that he had calculated his move with cool mind and full possession of his faculty, the defence of provocation by insulting words cannot be availed to him. It is quite clear on the evidence that the accused did not act suddenly, but he deliberated upon his move of taking the deceased to the river Mashate and killed him. Thus, based on the foregoing reasons, I am fully satisfied that the accused Linus Vicent @Shabani had malice aforethought when he caused the death of the deceased person. It follows therefore, that due to the reasons which I have assigned above; I am of the settle view that the prosecution Republic has sufficiently discharged their legal duty of proving their case against the said accused person on the standard required by the criminal Law. I therefore, find the accused Linus Vicent @Shabani guilty of the offence of Murder contrary to Section 196 and 197 of the Penal Code and accordingly convict him, as charged. 25 A.A.Mrisha Judge 28.03.2025 SENTENCE There is only one punishment for the offence of Murder once it is proved. My hands are tied by the law and I have to pronounce the sentence. I sentence you Linus Vicent @Shabani to fer death as provided under section 197 of the Penal Code Cap 16. I further direct that you shall suffer d by hanging as provided by Section 26(1) of the Penal C Cap R.E 2019. It is so ordered. . A. MRISHA JUDGE 28.03.2025 Right of Appeal explained. A. A. MRISHA JUDGE 28.03.2025 26