19901219 TZHC Dar es Salaam3
The conviction was quashed because the trial magistrate failed to record an opinion on the intelligence and understanding of the child witness as required by section 127(2) of the Evidence Act, and failed to warn herself of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence of a child of tender years as required by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19901219 TZHC Dar es Salaam3
- Parties
- Appellant: Harudu Juua; Respondent: The United Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 19 December 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- conviction quashed, retrial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Unnatural Offence, Child Witness, Corroboration, Voir Dire, Retrial
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Harudu Juua
Appellant
The United Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate properly conducted voir dire for a child witness under section 127 of the Evidence Act
- 2 Whether the conviction could be sustained on uncorroborated evidence of a child of tender years
- 3 Whether the failure to warn herself of the dangers of convicting on such evidence was fatal to the conviction
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was quashed because the trial magistrate failed to record an opinion on the intelligence and understanding of the child witness as required by section 127(2) of the Evidence Act, and failed to warn herself of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence of a child of tender years as required by section 127(3).
Court Disposition
conviction quashed, retrial ordered
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Conviction quashed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
. !f/c 1-../(j l{-,4;' y ;-0·. ~ tl, APPELLATE JUl1ISDICTIOH .. •.f TIIGII COURT CRUilUAL APPEAL 1'~0 t 2,2, Ot:: ~ · (F.ron the ,ariJinal Critlinal Ca.so Hoe1303 of 1989 of tho .District ( . Court of Ilc.b. District at KiVUlconi) \.. Before GoICA'l'O, Esq; Rodclcnt Ii.~ictxa.to IIAUUDU' JUUA., • • • • •• • •• • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••• • •• • • • .APPELLAHT · · · ( Oricrinnl /1.ecusod) vorsuo TI1E UHITED nEPODLIC ................. •• •••••••••••••••••aEsPo1mENT . · ( Origi11al P.roeooutor) · JUDGI::IENT llAiWii ~rl•• ' .. Tho r,ppollnnt was ~onvicto,1. of the ottc1100 o:l 'Utll1atural offonoc contrti;ey to section 154( 1) of tho Pcno.l Coc~o 2.l,d scntcnood to four yca:rs' ir.11risonnont. I!o is r,ppoo..ling ocnins·t conviction• 'l".ll'Co arounq.s of appcol ,:,;co act out i11 tho r.1cuornndutl of a.ppoaJ..· · Thoy l'i:fa that tho cvidonco relied on 1-ms tJ.:::-;t cf ;:,., child of tcno.or yoare which WO.::! m1oorroboro.tcct and tho.t the lc ..~nod lb.:;istrato did not warn · hiosclf of tho clmgcrs of relying on ovic.lc11co of n. child of tondor: yoa-rs. Lo.et~ 1•;; h..1.S bcon ~ged in tho pctition%1Jpcr.l 'Ghc.t tho trial Jv~iotrato relied on hoa:rsey ovidonoc. In his subniseion, 1'11•, R-1.1.t~D.tina, lee.med oounsol holdir..c a briof for r.~\ Soncru.a.wc loa:mcd. counsel for the· r:a_,r.,ollc'.11t, nrguoc1. that tho. ovidonoo relied 011 wus th..--.t of tho conploinm1.t lrho wo-s on]¥ 12 years when lio c;c.vo ovidoncc. Ile subr:ti:litcd thc.t the aviclonco was not r;ivon . . - on ol'.th l'..'lcl -'ch2..t tho Court did not hold n vo:\.rc clil'o cs required by section 127 of tho Evi.do11co ii.ct nor did the l:b{~istr~.to warn herself of tho d..in~or..· of conviotinc on euoh 0vido1100 M rcquiroc1 by section 127• Inst.oatt, .Hr;. Rutngo.tino. conoludod, tho lco.rnctl H.,eistreto relied on hoa-f scy oviclonoo free the nether of. PlT2" In rop4"' to tho.t., Hr. ICru:1ba Loarnocl St~,tc Attorney, said tha.t ho was· euppo:Min.G tho oonviction boo<.1.ueo the voi:ro c1irc WI..\S co11duotcd and th.."\t .iltho~h tho court clitl no·~ wc.rn i tsclf of tho cl...1.1\'.!or of oonviothlg on .such ovidonoa, there wn.s oonol)orative evic.lo11oa to be found in tho· PF 3. In c:-, short roply, Mr:'/ Rittr'[;:.-..tinn sub1:1iJli'iicc".. Ji;hc..t tho i'F,.3 clid not sho,-t tho identity of tho offondor!:' . i) i\ftel' coinG through tho proo0oc1inco of t).:J lower coU:t't I have boon rl)lo to finc.l that tho chilc1 witJ.13ss· Vi12; who io sho1m to hr.vo boon 12 yanr~t sinp'.ly ::itntod tl'l.D..t :ho know to sJGo;ti"l tl'l::, trt·d;h nnd th~,t ·· . he cannot lie boca.uso it :ls r. sin~ lfo co11cluaio:1 io recorded by tho trial MngisJ~r.to to show that ehc is sc.,tisfioc1 th<'.:'li t:.1CJ o:1ilcl WM poesossod of S'll.ffioiont intolliccnoo to jur.rtify tho rcco1)ti0:'.'.. of his ovidonce and - tllo:li the ohilc1 ilndorotood tho duty of spoolc:.ac -tho t1'1..1.tho Section 127(2)of tho tc.w of Evidonoo statoss Whore in rury C1'ininnl 08.'l.l.80 or J:11'..ttor ;:ind child of tender yocxs oclled t.s G- ui tnosc cloos not, in tho opinion of tho court, unclcrsJiin.ncl the nature of ~ or.th, his cvidonoo r.i~- bo rccoi ved, though not given upon oath or c'.£:i'irrJo.,tion, it in tho opit.ion . .. of the court, .!QJ2o rcc_orp.oc\ in ,tho _proceec1ings, ho is possessed ~f sufficient intolliconoo to justify' tho r-0coption of his ovidonoo I ro1c1. undarst::ind tho duty of spocldncr tho truth. ( tt.1dorl:ining supplied.)~ The 0bovo oi tad subsection clonrl3 shoi-Ts inJi;cr c.lia tha.t the opinion of the cour"i;; oust bo recorded in tho procaccfu1.Gs, In this ca.so thero was no reoorcling of tho opinion of -~ho court on whet_,_ ::r tho, court found tlu\t ~ tho cJ.,..il(l i·rr:.s possessed of sufficient intollic;c:1C o to justify tho reception of hia eVicknco .:,nd. irh<'d:ihcr 110 unc.lcratood. tho (;.·.r·y of spooking tho trutbi,i• Thorofo:i:o e1Gotion 127( 2) of tb.o Evidonco .Act wc,3 not conplicd. with. It follows tha11 tha.t tho ovidonoo o-J: tl1c cl:.ilc1 cr.-;;:,.:r.o·b bo relied upon in on-iving at a conclusion• I:urthcrnoro, tho judr;oont doos not show :·:i: -/1oro that tho loarnod Me,gietrc.,tc wa:r-nod her self of. tho clcncor of ~.c·'.'.i.: .:; o~ tho evidence of tho ohild witnaos without cor:robor~/i;ion 2.s roqui!'( d ;Jy av.'.beeotion (3) of sootion 127. Thorcforo ov'cn if• subaoction (2) .:;::-,.cl boon oonpliod with, tho conviction could not bo uphold duo to tl:c l'. Jll oonplinnco of su.beeo11. 0 n (3) of section 127ft · TJ.1.01~0 is 110 othor natoricl oviclonoo, 1x1 SL:pport af tho child ovidenoe, i0plior,ti11£; tho appollant. Ao riGhtly pointocl out 1)y ltr:r.. Rut~3atina., tho PFe3 cloos ·not .tell tho identity of tho sodor.~:.~·or:, It Doroly shows that the oomplr.in['.11.t was sodonizod• Nor c1oos tho oviclm100 of tho oother of PW2 add aeyt~ na.terinl to the ovi,lonoo of PW2 so cs Jlio inplicato oooquate:J.y thG appollnnt. ru.lowed... I therefore allow the <",p11ec'.11 quash the co1ni.c·~ion and set ~ide ~the sentence. IIowovor, since tho offence is 2, ve-.ry serious one ~d the conviction hae been quashed on teclmico,li-tics only :r am minded to orde:r a retrial. In I~isil'i Mwite.. s/o Kisil'i v; Ae.r~~t1)~.£ (1901) TLR 2H3 conviction wo..s qv.,::1,shed, due to or:-.isdon to conc~uc-t :-.. voire dire before c:q·1 - :rctri~:J.: o~'r\ro'l swearing in the w.i.tnees of tender ycr-;-;rs, / I nold, tJ.1c:1.1 ovcnJ. in ·tho present oa.se it is in tho inforcst of justico -'.:).-~at 0 ·rctri~ :.JG oxcl.eroda- r, conse- quently, orde:r ·th._..,,;t the appcl121ri;_ be :r0-'w:iod 1Jefore ~:no·fuer nagie~ate o:f' competent jtll"isuiction. ... .... - .... .2;(~;;::-(\.· •. l.!. I .i..-. ~ ...... \ JU1)GE \ 19/12/90 . Delivered. to appellant and Mrs,. SILAA fox RGpublic. i f