John Mulenga Sinjela v The People (Appeal 58/2024) (15 August 2025) – ZambiaLII

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ZAMBIA APPEAL 58/2024 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: JOHN MULENGA SINJELA APPELLANT AND THE PEOPLE RESPONDENT CORUM: Mchenga DJP, Ngulube and Chembe JJA On 20th May 2025 and 15th August 2025 For the Appellant Mrs. M. K. Liswaniso - Deputy Chief Legal Aid Counsel, Legal Aid Board For the Respondent Mrs. S. Muamba - Deputy Chief State Advocate, National Prosecution Authority JUDGMENT Chembe, JA, delivered the judgment of the Court. Cases referred to: - 1. Dorothy Mutale and Another v The People (1997) ZR 51 S.C. 2. Mbinga Nyambe v The People (2011) ZR Vol 1 246 3. David Zulu vs The People (1977) ZR 115 4. Sakala v The People ( 1980) ZR 205 5. Saidi Banda v The People SCZ Judgment No 30 of 2015 6. Haamenda vs The People (1977) ZR 184 (S.C) J2 1.0. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Appellant was convicted on one count of Murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia and sentenced to life imprisonment by Judge M. L Zulu. 1.2 The particulars of offence alleged that on 30th January 2022, the Appellant murdered Gift Namutowe. 2.0. THE EVIDENCE IN THE COURT BELOW 2.1 The prosecution called three witnesses. Their main evidence, led by PWl, Kelister Nambemba, was that on 30th January 2022, she, the deceased, and the Appellant went to plant maize. After running out of seed, the Appellant was given KS0.00 to go and buy seed. When he took long to return, PWl and the deceased followed him to Maiteneke village where they found him drinking with his friends. They collected the seed he had bought and persuaded him to go home. They all returned home around 17:00 hours. 2.2 The deceased and the Appellant entered the main house, while PW 1 slept in a separate room with her children. Shortly J3 thereafter, PWl heard the Appellant call the deceased's name three times. He then called her for help. 2.3 PWl rushed to the room but found the door locked. With the help of the Appellant's son, Taila Sinjela- PW2, they broke the wall and opened the door. Inside, PWl saw the deceased lying on a reed mat with a white substance mixed with blood coming from her mouth. She was unresponsive. The Appellant did not say anything and appeared confused. The deceased was taken to ZAF Hospital and later referred to Mbala General Hospital, where she died. 2.4 PW2's testimony was similar to that of PWl in all material respects, so we shall not reproduce it. 2.5 PW3, Detective Aubrey Mwewa, testified that while on duty at Mbala Police Station, he was assigned a murder case. He began investigations and interviewed the Appellant, who denied committing the offence. PW3 also witnessed the postmortem examination of the deceased, noting that before the examination, the deceased's body was bleeding from the mouth and nose and had a swollen face. Based on the investigations and evidence gathered he charged the Appellant with the offence of murder. J4 2.6 He tendered the postmortem report which revealed the cause of death to be head injury possibly secondary to trauma. There were also findings of fracture of the right parietal region and bleeding below the fracture. 2.7 In his defence, the Appellant opted to remain silent. 3.0 THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT 3.1. After reviewing all the evidence, the trial Judge determined that the case was anchored on circumstantial evidence. He found that it was the Appellant who inflicted the severe injuries on the deceased revealed by the postmortem report. 3.2. The Court noted that it was not disputed that the Appellant and the deceased were the only people in the bedroom. The Judge concluded that the only logical conclusion was that the Appellant, being the only person with the deceased at the time, inflicted the injuries that led to her death. He also found that the Appellant acted with malice aforethought. 3.3. Finding no extenuating circumstances, the Court convicted the Appellant of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. JS 4.0. GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL 4.1 Disconsolate with the decision of the trial court, the Appellant launched this appeal fronting one ground as follows: The learned trial Court erred in law and fact when the Court convicted the Appellant on circumstantial evidence which did not take the case out of the realm of conjecture to permit only an inference of guilt. 4.2 In the arguments in support, the Appellant submitted that the facts adduced during the trial showed that more than one inference could be drawn as to the deceased's cause of death. It was argued that the postmortem report did not eliminate other possible inferences being drawn. The Appellant submitted that the evidence showed that the deceased could have died from high blood pressure or poisoning. 4.3 We were referred to the case of Dorothy Mutate and Another v The People1 where the Supreme Court urged trial courts to adopt an inference which was more favourable to the accused where two or more inferences were possible. The case of Mbinga Nyambe v The People2 was also cited to buttress the argument that the trial court should have considered the other inferences which were available. J6 4.4 Relying on the case of David Zulu v The People3 the Appellant , submitted that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution did not take the case out of the realm of conjecture and did not attain a degree of cogency that permitted only an inference of guilt. 4.5 A further argument was that the prosecution had failed to prove the case to the required standard. We were urged to quash the conviction and acquit the Appellant. 5.0 RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS 5.1 In the heads of arguments in opposition, the Respondent supported the decision of the trial court that the Appellant having been alone with the deceased when the incident occurred created a situation where the only inference that could be drawn was that he is the one who caused the injuries that resulted in her death. 5.2 It was submitted that the contention by the Appellant there was a possibility that that the deceased suffered a traumatic attack caused by high blood pressure or poisoning or both was untenable in view of the peculiar facts of the case. The Respondent recounted the evidence that the Appellant was alone in a locked room with the deceased. The cases of Mbinga J7 Nyambe v The People (Supra) and Sakala v The People4 were referred to in support of the argument that the circumstantial evidence was so strong that it permitted only an inference of the Appellant's guilt. 5.3 The Respondent also rebuffed the Appellant's assertion that the prosecution evidence did not eliminate other inferences being drawn by maintaining that the evidence was so cogent that it did not permit any other inference. 6.0 HEARING 6 .1 At the hearing of the appeal, Counsel for the Appellant emphasized that the gist of her argument was that there were other inferences that could be drawn from the circumstantial evidence such as the fact that the deceased was hypertensive. She argued that had a toxicology examination been done, it could have revealed that the cause of death was inconclusive. Counsel for the Respondent relied entirely on the filed heads of argument. 7.0 ANALYSIS AND DECISION 7 .1 We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence presented in the lower court as well as the judgment delivered on 24th March, 2024 and the arguments by both sides. The issue for JS determination is whether on the circumstantial evidence • presented, two or more inferences could be drawn. 7 .2 There is no dispute that this case was anchored on circumstantial evidence as no one actually saw the Appellant inflict the fatal injuries on the deceased. The prosecution's case was based on the inferences that could be drawn from the evidence adduced from PWl and PW2. 7.3 The undisputed evidence was that on 30th November 2022, the Appellant retired to bed with the deceased who was his wife. The Appellant was later heard calling the deceased's name and calling for help. When PWl went to find out what was happening, she found the door to the room locked and the Appellant did not respond to her pleas for the door to be opened. With the help of PW2, the door was opened and they found the deceased unresponsive on the floor with white stuff mixed with blood coming out of the mouth. The Respondent did not say anything but was seen crying and appeared confused. 7.4 After his arrest, the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to how the deceased died but denied having killed her. J9 During the postmortem examination, PW3 observed that the deceased's head was swollen. 7.4 During the trial, the Appellant opted to remain silent. There was therefore no explanation on what transpired in the room where the Appellant and the deceased were. The postmortem report established the cause of death to be head injury possibly secondary to trauma. 7 .5 From the above facts the trial court concluded that the only inference that could be drawn was that the Appellant caused the injuries that led to deceased's death. 7 .6 In the case of Saidi Banda v The People5 the Supreme Court , guided as follows on circumstantial evidence: "Where the prosecution's case depends wholly or in part on circumstantial evidence, the Court is, in effect, being called upon to reason in a staged approach. The Court must find that the prosecution evidence has established certain basic facts. Those facts do not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Taken by themselves, these facts cannot therefore prove the guilt of the accused person. The Court must then be satisfied that those further facts implicate the accused person in a manner that points to nothing else but his guilt. Drawing conclusions from one set of established • JlO facts to find that another fact or facts are proved clearly requires a logical and rational process of reasoning." 7.7 In the present case, the facts were that the deceased was well and alive when she and the deceased retired to their room to sleep. She had been working in the field during the day and there was no suggestion that she was unwell. There was no other person in the room when the deceased became unresponsive. The Appellant refused to open the locked door to allow PW 1 in and did not proffer any explanation for what transpired. The deceased was found to have suffered a head injury. The postmortem report revealed abnormal findings which included a closed fractured of the skull and blood clots in the region. 7 .8 Despite, the spirited arguments by Counsel for the Appellant, the record of appeal does not show that the findings in the postmortem report were challenged. There was a conclusive finding in the report as to the cause of death which was neither poisoning nor high blood pressure. The abdominal cavity was clear and there were no abnormal findings on the other organs. Jll 7.9 In our view, the Appellant's conduct was odd and suggestive of guilty knowledge. If indeed the deceased had ingested some poison whilst in the room or suffered a stroke, the Appellant would have informed PW 1 about it. The failure to explain what transpired does suggest that something sinister happened in that room. The refusal to unlock the door when PW 1 went there also militates against the Appellant. 7.10 The trial Court opined that the Appellant's behavior of resisting to open the door was inconsistent with innocence. We refer to the case of Haamenda vs The People6 where the Supreme Court held that odd coincidences may be deemed corroborating evidence. 7 .11 We find that the trial judge correctly considered the strands of evidence in totality concluding that the only inference that could be drawn was that it was the Appellant who inflicted the head injuries that led to the death of the deceased. We agree that the above facts lead to only one inescapable inference that it was the Appellant who caused the injuries that led to the deceased's death. 7 .11 The cases of Dorothy Mut ale and Another v The People (supra) and Mbinga Nyambe v The People (supra) cited by J12 the Appellant are not applicable to the present case as the • facts here revealed only one possible inference. 8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 We are satisfied that the circumstantial evidence herein was so overwhelming that the trial Court could only infe r that the Appellant murdered the deceased. We find no basis for interfering with the conviction. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. P.C.M.NGULUBE Y. CHEMBE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE