na TZHC Mwanza 8

.. -h IA T12 :LIc!J:. COD .T 0 T HIGH Ch T CAlif HCL AJCEAL NO.123/72 (Original Crininal Cese Ao. 63 of 1972 of the District Court of rnnza District at PAranza Before I.G. Tugai.ukanu, Aso. SIVIATER iANYESKr.. . . . .................. I7PETI , iTT (Original Accused). ITs. fAD RIAP3LIC . ................ ...........,... (Original Prosecutor) CiRG-E Grievous ham c/s 225 of the Penal Code. JUDGIUH\TT JODATEiN 1 AG. J. - The appellant was charged with causing grievous ham contrary to Sec -bion 225 of the Penal Code s but he was convicted of unlawful wounding contrary to section 228 of the Code and sentenced to one year's inprisonnent. There is no merit in this anoa1. The complainant was walking hone at about 11.00 p.m. in the coapany of one Edward PP.4 and his wi e Pi. 2 when they cane across the a ellant and three others. According c the coaplainant, the aellant stood in his way, and he protested. Then the apnellant struck hL -. 1 on the head with an object he did not know. He fell doun unconscious. Iron there he was taken to hospital. Esteria, 7l.2. (one Edward's wife) gave a moreorless sinilar account. Like the corplainant and her hushencl she know the na chant, As they were going hotc he stood in her way After she bd pa-seed hin ho asked her to go ahead and ache a bed to share with hin t I.drard expressed annoyance at this, whrc upon, the anpohlant said sonecas would die that night. Ike the-n saw the appellant strike the conalainant at the heed with a short panga. The coaplainant fell do --n and the apnellant and his natos rana1ay. The redical renort shows the coenlainant as keying suotainc-d a cut wound on the head noasuririg I c:-n. in length and 4 on. in depth caused by a sharp object cutting throughnuscle, arteies and veins. --he doctor descril ad the injur: as -dangerous in -r3J for which -U- he co:riplainant was under trcat.,ont for a fortnight. In his unswomn statenent the aao1lant said tersely that on the actonini. night he was at hone mac1. not :.t the nonbe chopnear which the incident allegedly took place. - The witnosses knew the ape1lant and as their evidence sheod clearly that there was noon hi1iict identification was possible. I an satisfied that the trial court properly rejected the defence and that the ccnvictien was soand. fho anne-al would not have boon cd ed c her a but for ac U-once whica ane inedoqw uC A closer look a -U- tI - c facts has since confirneci this. The appellant struck a blow which randered the- 'cbl uncenscious while it would appear frca. the doctor's opcTt that the injury, itself inflicod on a vulnerable part of cbod3i, was a had ene, In LpJ view the facts were sufficient to ground a conviction for causing grievous ham as the charge read end -nat rarely one for unlawful wounding. Then there is ether ohmvjor of th e appc-rLant to considor. /2 •- 2 Thez'e was no eeue wataoeverb the appellant standing .n the way of the otiplainat arid S companions and uttering wordc so insulting of Estoria. and certainly insulting also of her husband, while it seemothat the preceding threat to kill:.ome.. body was not mere hot air. For those reasons, and in view of the complete absence of provocation on the part of the appellant I asked him to say why the sentence should .- . nbt - be e4hanced. . He offered nothing worthy of consideration and, accordingly, the sentence is hereby set aside, and there is substituted a sentence of 2years' imprisonient. The appeal is otise dismissed. (P.M. Jonatbaxi) 4& I) F~