19760522 TZHC Arusha

--- IN THE HIGH COURT OF TJ4TZfUIi AT LRU2IfL (IN THU DISTRICT ILJGIUTRY OP T1UGk) T. TJITGh CRIIINL.L IITELL 1T06 5 OF 1976 PROLI THE DEC TH3ICU OF THU DISTRICT COURT OF MUHEZA / il 1rrTTTr1r7 ..J_ iurii.i CRL..IeL C Z& 3" E 10. 69 OP 1976) RIEif SIIDI o 0 • 0 •.• 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 • 4 4 0 I 00 • 4 • o kk.LLJZJ..JJJ.tJ.l (Original LcCUsod) vTrsus- • . - 'mC -nrTTvri'rll THE REPUBLIC •400..0040000000000100 .o. .L' .JLL)S'VJ.JJiJJ1J_ • (Original Prorjccutor) TTrr: Tm J UJJxi:LkiiLL JOTdj. The appellant .....ud her sister were charged with grievous har:o 'c/s. 225 of tho Poaai Code. Her sister was acquitted. The ajellaiit on the othr hand was convicted and sentenced. to 12 nonths' i.oprisorinont. a aiai (.T.l) he had cu en ccoraing 'Ca the cc '.plin Lthe a000i n e, th. vild or to sue tI b r cr kios,, in tht area was ]rw.poriy vo.ed. In particular, ho was to see thot poe pie did not wash do thus there • On the naterial af ternoon he passed og o.aly to s os tlic. aeJ1ant o/asi').ing clothes at that jo 1 c He see. n to. hays ra.inded her of the agre onont that had U eon reached pros crihing the washing of cl'otnes surs • Sncoow .511 once aro replied rudol. There was •:', little a1torcatisi which rosulsod in the appellant boating hin in thu face with a wet pioco of cloth. Ho tried to ward her off 'ancT as ho was doing so the sistcr of the a p:p c ilan t ca:.ic. along and hold the

conplainant fran behind. Ho turned to, face this other assail::.nt. The appellant fully exploited that óimoltumity, that by biting off a considcrabl' 'portion of the cs.clplainantts-Oori Sue spat it down to be swallowed by a duck. Ho blcd profusely. The ocdical report shows he lost :'TWOut three quarters of the right pinna. This accr.auat is fully supported by the evidence of '.H.2. The appellant in her evidence said she had boon washing clothes sane distance fran the water tops when tho conplainant cans there • There was a little exchange of words.. in the O0LlI°800I wnicn the co:plainan gave her a fist blow on the forcdioad • Ho then proceodod to: throttle her and to defend herself she bit off that ear. The evidence of her accused sister bore out her testinidny to the- extent that she foirnd the co....plainnnt throttling her. She hold iiiu to save hor sister. She did not however see when the conplainent was bitton. The case crucially -depended on credibility. The learned trial :mgistratc in his judgeiont had no doubt at all that P.11.1 and P.11.2, both elderly poop1o, had told the truth. P.11. 2 was... .-. •.. . . -2- P.W.2 was an indpenJont witness and he had no reason to take sines in the naer • On the evidence as a whole the lower court was juetifi,ed to. reject tIe: defence and to convict the appellant. ccordinjly, the appeal Alkinst c o nvic tion i s disnised. The s

entonco of 12 raorths cannot in the circumstances be said to be excessive. I have however been preoccupied with a report tjeet she is propnaxit and is not eating well, if at all. The prison au.horitics on account of this soon to be havina a ree;ner awkward experience. I would accordiixylp adro with r. hwipopo that, in view of the circumstances she bo released from prison. Accordingly, there is substituted such tern of imprisonment as will result in her im.eeJiac roloaso from prison. It is however ordered that s.Leo coapennatos the complainant with the sum 01 &;s.600, this withouu proudice to any civil claim he may decide to iile against her. 7/ ItAJL( \ • . Q. II. JOITATiLll) JUDGE. Dtiw-crcd in ox u Court this 22ac nay of Ly, 1975. I (P. II. JOILJEiU)