19900903 TZCA Mbeya1

IN 'l'ill!l COlfilT OF APPEAL OF T.ANZANIA AT .MBEYA (COi.1P..m MAIC1.J,~ 2 Jo.A. 2 OM:ill. 2 J.A. i: .And MNZAVAS 2 J.A.) CRIMEif..:':..L APP&U, IifO. 168 OF 1989 BETWE.JN THE DI~"..:JCTOR OF PUBLIC PROS::-3CUTIONS., • • • • • APPELki.NT AN] KIL11.Gli.1U K..."..YUGWA. • • • • • • • • • 0 f) 0 b • RESPONDENT (Appeal· from the conviction of the High Court of Tanzania at Ir.inga) ( Mchome , J s ) dated the 27th day of September; 1989 in Criminal Sessions Case No. 39~•f 1989 JlIDGMJii.iT OF Trill COIB T The respondent in this case, Kilagani Kayugwa, was charged with muxder c/s 196 of the Penal Code. It was the prosecution case that on " or about the 26th day of October, 1987 at Eshindo area within the District and Iringa Regi~n murder.ed one, Attu d/ o ~enry Wyimbo~ After a full trial the High Court, (Mchome, J.,), found the respondent guilty, not of mm"d.er, but of the lesser off~ncG of a,s'!':;O,ul.*, ~--ruJ.Bi~-ig ~otual bodily harm o/s 241 of the Penal Code, end sentenced him to absolute discharge. Disaatisfied with the sentence imposed .tae Republi~ ha~ appealed to this Court., .Arguing r.,gn.inst tile sentence Mr •. Kapinga, learned State Attorney, submitted th~t tho le::11'.'ned judsu misdirectad himself in his judgement when he said that the xespondent hc..d merely' slapped the deceased whG.I'e.i:l.S he had. found tlut the assault of tho deceased by the respondent ~used the deceased actu.:..l l:iodily hurm and. conv:i,cted him of th2.t offence und.<?..I' section 241 of the Pen2.l Code. It was oxgu.ed thc.t 2 had tho lcc..:mod judge not misdirected himself ho would have· imposed a custonio.l· sentence and not tho sentence of absolute dischc.rg_e. We arc invi tcd to 0lli1.c..nco tho sentence to one of imprisonment. rv1:r8 TukUnjoba 9 le2..rned counsel for tho rcs~ond.ont, argued in r9buttnl that the tric:;.l judge wn.s right in imposing tho sentence of absolute disc:.10.rgc. after taking into account the fe;ct tho..t the respondent hnd I been in romcnd for a period of 23 monthso Hro Tukunjoba. asked the Court to dismiss the cppon.l c.go.inst sentence~ With respect to the lor.rnod Sk,te :.ttorney wo do not think tho.t the leo.rnod tric.l judge misdirected himself !'7hon ho s2.ys i11 his judg'Omont thn.t tho respondent merely sla.:pped tho doco1J,se9-. 1~11 tho prosecution wi tnosses gave ovidonco to that effect. And o..s th01·0 wc.s o..lso evidence that as a result of tho assc.ult of the dococ.sed by the respondent dccen.scd 1 s neck 6 ot swollen tho lon.rned judge wn.s o,lso right when ho talked of assn.ult en.using o.ctu~l bodily harp. Coming bc;ck to the sontonco of c'i)soluto discho.:rge t'..;.c judonu s2-id: ~Tho accused is 0, first offender. Tho offence ho has ~)eon convicted of cr..rrios a rna.xi.IrnWI ~oru::.lity of five yo~rs irnprisonrnonto Re ~~s stcyod in romr.nd for 23 months awuiting,µio.l for r.1u:rdcro Tl10 suspense ,~:ad_ h.u~d:ship 9f rer:ie,nd for 23 months is enough punishr1on~ for tho slc,ps h0 c2.vo d.ococ,sodo · I th0r9-fore d.iscb.o.rgo a,ccusod c.bsolutoly. 11 This Court ha,s~ times witl1out nUDbor 9 donlt with appm·-ls by tho Republic alleging inadoquGncy of sontonco imposed by th0 lower Courts 9 and tho principle we lmVG c:,lwc1ys follouod is that 11 a.n 2.:ppollate Court should not interfere with tho discretion exercised by o. trial judge o.s to sentence except· in such 02-ses w:.10:;.~c it c.ppoc.,rs. tha.t. in c.sscssing sentence tho jud.go hes acted on some wr~11J :,?rinciplo or ho.s imposed a, sentence which is ma.nifestly-.1no.dcq_u,::,to or r.mnifostly oxoo~s.ive" - :a. .• Vo MOIL~-'.C.ID~~J..I JAM,.':.1 ( 1248) Ei\.CA 126. "". ;J.:.._/'c;·~·ff'';, ,,, I' :... ;",· :.· _·.·•,. ·RL .. \.:.. ,.,;: ;,: ,,;, • ~-.•' 1· ,, 3 Dealing 1with tho question .of sentence the Eastern j,frica. Court of Appeal also sc.id in tho cc.sc of J;:J,IJS s/o YOR.:iM v,, R (1951) 18 EACf~ 147 '/ "A Court of 1:.ppoc.l will not ordinarily interfere w:_ith tho discrotion excrdised by a trial judge in t~10 ,w2..ttor of .sentence unless it is ovidont that he hi:1d o.ctod upon some wrong principle, or overlooked some m9,terial factor 11 ., In the cu~cur:1stances of thi.s ca.so 'wo do not think thr~t in i0posing the sentence he.did tho tric.l ju:dge acfod on some -w:rong principle or overlooked some 02..tori~l factor. lle D{,JTec wit~1 T,11: .. Tukunjobo., learned couJ1sol for tho respondent, that the appe~l c.,g~inst sentencQ. h~s no merit ~nd. it is accordingly dismiss.ado DaTJID. at HDDL".. this 3rd day of Septom1io:..', 1990. JUSTICD OF .::.PP:i:TI.AL .:•• ii:. i'.i. or.trn JU'.:3TIC:ti OF ii.PPB.¼ I certif'.r that '\his is a t:ruc