[2015] UGHCCRD 32
The court found that the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, including circumstantial evidence, which clearly implicated the appellant in the forgery and uttering of false documents. The appellant was identified by witnesses and linked to the offences through her actions and communications. The absence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] UGHCCRD 32
- Parties
- Appellant: Setti Madina; Respondent: Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 020 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed
- Judges
- Namundi, j
- Legal Topics
- Forgery, Uttering False Documents, Evaluation of Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Sentencing, Identification of Accused
- 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
Setti Madina
Appellant
Uganda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in law and fact by failing to properly evaluate the evidence and reaching a wrong decision.
- 2 Whether the conviction and sentence for forgery and uttering false documents were justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, including circumstantial evidence, which clearly implicated the appellant in the forgery and uttering of false documents. The appellant was identified by witnesses and linked to the offences through her actions and communications. The absence of direct victim testimony and lack of physical evidence from her home did not outweigh the circumstantial evidence and witness identification. The conviction and sentence were found to be justified and in accordance with the law. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction and sentence by the trial court are maintained and confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA**
**CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 020 OF 2011**
(Arising from Criminal Case No. 070/2009 – Kayunga)
**SETTI MADINA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT**
**VERSUS**
**UGANDA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT**
**BEFORE: THE HON. JUSTICE GODFREY NAMUNDI**
**JUDGMENT**
This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the Magistrate Grade 1, Mr. Kagoda-Ntende in which he convicted the Appellant on six Counts for Forgery and six Counts of Uttering False Documents. He sentenced her to pay a fine of Shs.600,000/- on all the first six Counts and 6 months custodial sentence on the other Counts.
The Appeal is against both conviction and sentence.
1. Ground No. 1 is that the trial magistrate erred in law and fact when he failed to evaluate the evidence on record and reached a wrong decision. 2. Ground No. 2: That the trial magistrate erred in law and fact when she sentenced the Appellant to a fine and custodial sentence.
The Appellant’s Counsel faults the magistrate that the prosecution witnesses did not clearly identify A2 as the person who forged and uttered the Appointment Letters to the victims.
Secondly, that the specimen signatures sent to the handwriting expert did not include that of the Appellant to establish whether she forged the handwritings and signatures. That the Report showed that the same were forged but did not show that the Appellant was involved in the said utterances.
Thirdly, that there was no single victim who came to testify against the Appellant.
That a key witness Ibanda failed to implicate the Appellant and that a search at the Appellant’s home revealed nothing.
That as a result of the above, the conviction and sentence should be quashed and sentence set aside.
There was no specific submission on Ground No. 2.
For the prosecution, it was submitted that the magistrate properly evaluated the evidence. The Appellant was clearly identified and A1 also identified her as a work mate.
A2 was also implicated when she sought Shs.200,000/- for each document.
A trap was set and it led to her with her phone bearing messages that implicated her.
On sentence, the prosecution submits that the sentences were very lenient compared to the maximum of 10 years on each Count.
Considering the evidence, it is clear that the magistrate clearly dealt with the ingredients of each offence and found that each ingredient was properly proved to the necessary standards.
The evidence also reveals that there was a lot of circumstantial evidence that led to the conclusion of guilt on part of the Appellant. Circumstantial evidence has been dealt with in various authorities.
In **Akba Godi Vrs. Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 21/20…..,** it was held that circumstantial evidence is often the best evidence.
Further, circumstantial evidence is that which when properly considered leads to no other conclusion other than that of guilt in the absence of any exculpatory circumstances.
I find none in the instant case. The Appellant was master of a racket in her office that forged appointment and posting letters which together with A1 they would sell to gullible and desperate job seekers.
I find that the appeal has no merits.
The offences were properly proved to the required standards. It is dismissed accordingly and the conviction and sentence by the trial Court are maintained and confirmed.
**Godfrey Namundi**
**JUDGE**
**01/04/2015**
01/04/2015:
Appellant absent
Birungi for State
Court: Judgment read.
**Godfrey Namundi**
**JUDGE**
**01/04/2015**