19890914 TZCA Dar es Salaam4

'· Il\i THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CO~~: l~.!S_hl'E,, J.A., KISANGA, J.A., And OMAR, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. -132 OF 1988 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS • • • APPELLANT versus hI'l'tJl'l, HJ.MI SI. • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • RESPONDENT (J,ppeal from the Acquittal· of the High Court of Tanzania a~ Lindi) (Kapsim•·::•, J•) dated the 30th day of August, 1988 in Criminal Sessions Case No. 13 of 1986 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The respondent MITEMA HAMISI was charged with the murder rf his neighbour,,' a man called JUMA MP0SI, ;it Mandae Villasre, Nachingwea Distri•t, Lindi Region. The High C•urt which· tried him (Kazim<"to, I•, J.) ~- was not satisfied that thE charge had beerr pr•ved. Acc•rdingly the resp•nde~t . was acquitted. The Direc~~r of Public Prosecutions has appealed to this Co~rt and he was represented before us by Mr. Mwanyika, learned Principal State Attorneye Mr. Mnzava, learned Counsel from the Tanzania Legal Corporation, opposed the appeal. r.ri behalf -.f the respondent. The Rcptiblic?1 s c•11'1plaint was that th?- resp•ndent shOuld not have be::!n acquitted: The evidenoe on record wa. sufficient to warrant a ~onviction for murder or at least, alternatively, a special finding•£ Guilty but Insan~ under section 219 •f the Criminal Pr•ceduriAct. Mr. Mnzava submitted on the other h~nd, that his client was legally ins3.n2 at the mafr·rial time. TherG was in our view clear evidence that the responde~t killed the d2ceased by slashing him with a •anga in br•ad daylight • .e • • /2 • ...,. ,; "'!' ::•~ r. r t -" .~ 2 Ther.e ;,r2.s 110 controversy about this ancl t!:..e loa:rnod ju(~go so found. . '.• IInvt11g ~done so? l:owovcrs -~ho loarnocl_ jv.~lc;c went on to c.cqi t the rcsponclont for +,J~o reason t::o,t ho was umbl0 to c~ w::.ot:.10r or not the rcsponclont w,:,.,s c.-Jpos rn:mtis nt the !;12.,tetial ti1:1e 1 so ho .s0,icl ho wns giving hin tho t.,,f"" . benefit of doubt. r.rr, Hwmiyil:.:'l. subn:i:~tacl tlmt t;20 ,,ppGlL:mt wno not im,2,no bo:forc • a coricoction w:,,r.:; c'..llogoclly eivcn to l~i:::-, to clrink? unc.7- t~:nt th.o respondent :1 ·; .f did.rt drink t:.:o concoction in any 0YOnt? so t~:.at there HGG no ql.lGStion of 1{'~ ha,vin~ inG.ucocl inso,nity in tho responcont' s ;nind. It was a strange mixture the roopo:1do:.1t wc1s c0id to ::nYo boon given - t!.!.0 Govorru:iont Chorilist fol·~ · it -co be consisting of rotten hu..:inn blood? alco.'J.ol, and sor:10 unkl1ovm alk:t.'l.loid • . •. .... '. We e.r<i· so,tisfied on t!.::.c oviclori.cc t1:at tho rcspon ont partook of tho concoctio1r. ~1c.6 0.ro un2,blo to aeroo wi tl1 Ifro Hwanyilec.1, t~,.[1,t the 1 / respondent c1_icl .iot clo so• Tt:.G tostinony of PW o 1, NOlliJ:;~n II.iJIIfjI MW:J:IBO clcsrly :· .. :.-xl that t.!!.o rospondont clr.:i.nk t~:o 'stuff. We respectfully agree with ·c:::c lo2.I110cl tri2,l juclc;o t.':.c.,t it w2,s not sfa:i:iocl wJ,2-t offoct ,, ' tl:c Daicl ooLcocJ.;ion would hnvo on o;10 1 s Dic1clt nevertheless L1.c s.'.J.oulcl b.?,vo j ·ff considorocl t:.:.o rospo11dc11t I s bo!;.c.·wiour both boforo Cl.l'ld c1.ftor taldng tllo concoction4 T!:i.o cviJencc w.'.1s t.b"..t ~:.0 ::,2,cl boon behaving r,1os·c ctrangol~r earlier t~~c:.t ;,101"'!:i:ng 3,nd t!.:i.o previous :::1ig!:.t., IIo shut ou·i; ~:.in wife n.nd c:::.ildrcn fror.1 t:.-.o l10uso an.cl rofusocl to open t!::.o clcor w~::0~1 as:rncl by his br0Jv¼1or to clo so. T2~o rcspon~lm1t s2,icl t~:nt people wo12.ld to,ko away his • ~ • . Ho co.i:10 ov_-~ in l1is unclorpants 9 he fJe-icl ho, fol t lil;:c w2,;.,:cing to die, ho tb,lkocl to ~~L,molf, ~10 h.:i.cl a c~1iclrnn slm.i.gl!.torcd in tl:o c7.oo.cl of t!,.o ni(1'!1t, anc.l ate it;; anc.l ~~c wns gc;.10r0-lly t>.roatoning people-, 1:.lso -bhoro ·:, is o. history of insn;.1i ty in t!:o rcspo1:.'.).unt I s fanily o:f oriontc,tion i Two of h~s siblincs had boon !:iont21ly clorm1[:;oc.l. I •••o/3. 3 thnn not th<'-t ho w2.s ins.:-:no. i:i.1:::::.t viow is f;;. rt:::.cr ::::tronchthonod by tl::.c rcspon:lcnt' s tmt:.stml bol1a.viour i;ir-1cdic..toly nft0r to.king t:1e liqu.icl. Ho I \ wc::.s swoo.tinG profusely l:is eyes bulgocl ou-i;~ cmcl he cut hin own wife l ocvcral ti::ios. IJ:'l::.c :cesponc.lont killccl in tho circv.:-,1st2,ncos rcviowoc.l and it w::1.s in our vi;;;w 2. clc,-._r error to ncqu.i t l1ii:1. .i:'.:o co:croct fi:;1dine; Gl:,ould .!J.o,vo 1 boon Guilty Bn-~ Insnno in ncco_rdnnco i-rit:1 section 219 (2) of t!.:e CriElinal Procedure Act - tl12.t l1e; killocl tl:.o clocor-,soc.l but by ro2.son of his insnni ty he is not gv.. il ty of r-Iurckr o T!:10 102.rncd B:ig.1.::. Court jv.cli;·c s~'..ould. tl:on of this eppoc.l t~::.o le2..r110cl StD.te ,;\.ttor:,,10y conccclod. 2..s r..mcll. We 2.ccorclincly rovorso tho c,,cqui-'cteJ. t,nd fincl ·(;~·:e: rosponclont GuiHy But Inscm.o. We t11orcforc orclor t:~::i,t ~ certifiacl. cop'J of proceeclin0 s bo subr:iHtod to t:.w Einfoto:r 2..;1cl t.\.o:~ t:10 responc:i..ont · s~:,.nll monnw:lile be kept in cv..s·coC::,Y o,s 'u Crininal lunntic., I certify tb.o.t tl..is ;S.n n tn10 copy of tl10 original. SEDOR D:.';W'l'Y R[~GISTR:.R