africa.law — Free African Legal Information

Judgment

1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DODOMA SUB REGISTRY) AT DODOMA SITTING AT SINGIDA CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 1310 OF 2025 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS

NOEL STANSLAUS @ MAUZA
REHEMA KINGU @ SHABANI JUDGMENT Date of last order: 01/06/2026 Date of Judgment: 04/06/2026 LONGOPA, J.: The accused persons, Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu Shabani stood arraigned for the offence of Murder Contrary to Section 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022. It was alleged that the accused persons on 24 th day of March, 2024 around 15:00 hours at Nkungi Village, within the Mkalama District in Singida Region jointly and together did murder one Suzana D/O Kingu Shabani. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty to the offence they stood arraigned. This necessitated the Prosecution to call a total of eight

2 | P a g e witnesses and five physical and documentary exhibits to establish their case while the defence called two witnesses. The Prosecution enjoyed the legal services of Mr. Nehemia Kilimuhana and Mr. Richard Kipingu, bot learned State Attorneys while the Defence was led by Mr. Hemed Kulungu, learned advocate for the 1 st accused person and Salumu Kikoti, learned advocate for the 2 nd accused person. The summary of the evidence is as follows: PW 1 was G. 5387 SGT Omary Abdulabi Mangunda testified that on 26/03/2024 at around evening hours while at Nduguti Police Station received exhibits including sand and maize leaves with blood stains, a machete with blood stains, one Kitenge and a hat (Mzula type) with faint blue colour. These exhibits were received from Corporal Emmanuel Massawe relating to murder case NDT/IR/181/2024 for safe custody at Exhibits Store. According to PW 1, the Exhibits were recorded in Exhibits Register and then labelled for proper identification and that on 27/03/2024, Corporal Emmanuel Massawe handed over a sulphate bag and a piece of human meat of allegedly Suzana Shabani for safe custody.

3 | P a g e Further, PW 1 stated to have handed over the stores exhibits to Corporal Samson on 05/04/2024 for subjecting them to scientific investigation and laboratory analysis and they were handed back to him on 03/02/2025. PW 1 identified, tendered and this Court admitted a Kitenge clothing of brown colour, one hat “Mzula type” with faint blue colour and machete as Exhibits PE 1A , 1B and 1C respectively. In cross examination, PW 1 stated that in Exhibit PE 1A , the major colour is the brown colour and he does not recognise any other colours and that he had not stated the same to belong to the deceased one Suzana Kingu Shaban. Also, PW 1 added to have identified a machete Exhibit PE 1C by appearance of the handle as that was the only distinctive feature for identification. PW 1 admitted that he was unaware whose blood stains were in Exhibit PE 1C as his only duty was safe custody of the exhibit to the time the same were tendered to this court. Further, PW 1 stated that he never knew nor have ever seen the victim one Suzana Kingu Shabani. PW 2 was Dr. Lameck Francis Isdory who testified on 27/03/2024 at Mkalama District Hospital was ordered by the Medical Officer in

4 | P a g e Charge to perform an autopsy and at the Out-Patient Department he found a body which he confirmed was lifeless and went to the Mortuary where relatives of the victim including one Jackson a relative of the victim identified the body to be of Suzana Kingu Shaban. According to PW 2, he conducted the postmortem examination by placing the body on the table and examining it from head to toe. PW 2 stated to have observed cut wound sharp object at the neck and both legs near the knees. PW 2 concluded that cause of death was due to hypoxia as the throat/neck was cut thus the brain lack the air flow leading to death. At this juncture, a Postmortem Examination Report dated 27/03/2024 for Suzana Kingu Shaban was admitted as Exhibit PE 2. It was reiterated that the cause of death was hypoxia secondary to traumatic amputation of the neck with severe bleeding. The nature of weapon of the cut wound is a lethal/sharp object and that the postmortem examination report was landed over to Kattani the police officer.

5 | P a g e In cross examination, PW 2 stated that he did know the assailant who caused death to the victim and that the death would happen between two to five days of the postmortem examination. It was added by PW 2 that the body was at earlier stages of decomposition thus still capable of identification and recognition. PW 2 noted that the relatives of the victim are the ones who identified the body after the police had introduced them as relatives of the victim. PW 2 conclude that the body was of one Suzana Kingu Shabani as identified by the relatives. Another witness was Sheila Shaban Said who testified as PW 3. She testified that Suzana Kingu Shaban was her mother and died 24/03/2024. It was PW 3‘s testimony that she got information on 25/03/2024 that her mother had gone missing and returned to Nkungi Village on the same day and on 26/03/2024 participated in search for missing victim. According to PW 3, the accused persons were well known to her as Rehema Kingu, the second accused was her aunt, elder sister to her late mother and Noel Stanslaus Mauza was her uncle who is married to Rehema Kingu.

6 | P a g e PW 3 noted that in course of search, the villagers saw blood on sand/soil, a ‘Mzula’ hat with faint blue colour belonging to the 1 st accused and the brown coloured Kitenge that was used regularly by her mother. PW 3 stated to have the ‘Mzula’ hat has been owned and belong to Noel Stanslaus Mauza who is well known to PW 3 since he started living with 2 nd accused person. It was stated by PW 3, that villagers arrested Noel Stanslaus Mauza and interrogated him on the ‘Mzula’ hat, admitted to belong to him and that both Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu Shaban were put under restraints until when police arrived. PW 3 further stated that on 27/03/2024, she was called at Nduguti Police Station together with her grandmother Wamsingili for recording statement and taking samples for laboratory analysis of DNA. While at Nduguti Police Station they got information that body of her mother was found on Ndurumo river, went there and identified the body to be her months body as all relatives properly identified it.

7 | P a g e PW 3 added that the body had severe wound cut on the neck and legs, taken to Mkalama District Hospital, postmortem examination was conducted on the body and the medical officer stated that hypoxia was the cause of death. According to PW 3, she personally saw the body and identified it to be of Suzana Kingu Shabani. At this juncture, PW 3 identified that Exhibit PE 1A, the brown Kitenge cloth belonging to her late mother, and Exhibit PE 1C “Mzula” hat type belonging to 1 st accused person, Noel Stanslaus Mauza are same found at the scene of crime on 26/03/2024. PW 3 recognised and identified Noel Stanslaus Mauza by naming and touching him at the dock as well as Rehema Kingu Shaban. In cross examination, PW 3 noted that place where blood stains were found was in close distance with the Exhibits PE 1A and PE 1C. PW 3, stated that the “Mzula” hat was found within few steps from where blood was found, some three paces/steps from where blood was found. PW 3 stated that she knew the “Mzula” hat belong ed to Noel Stanslaus Mauza since she knew him to have used it for past five years prior to the incident of finding it near the blood.

8 | P a g e PW 3 reiterated that there has been conflicts on land/family land between the victim and the accused persons. PW 3 added that there are eye witnesses that Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu caused death of Suzana Kingu Shabani though she stated that she did not know reasons that led eye witness not to mention the assailants timeously. Further, PW 3 stated to have seen ‘Mzula’ hat being used by 1 st accused person in 2022 and 2023 prior to the date of incident. PW4: Elipendo Ezekiel Nsunza testified that on 24/03/2024, at around 15:00 hours at Nkungi Village she witnessed an incident where Suzana Kingu Shabani was attacked by her brother-in-law using a machete hitting the neck and being taken to the backyard of the house. I t was PW 4’s testimony that she was perplexed to witness incident of 1 st accused hitting the victim on neck with a machete at broad day light. It was evidence of PW 4 that immediately Rehema Kingu Shabani appeared from the maize farm, admitted that the house where the attack was seen belonged to Suzana Kingu Shabani. When 2 nd accused was informed on Suzana Kingu Shabani being attacked by her brother-in-law using machete, the 2 nd accused responded that victim

9 | P a g e Suzana Kingu Shabani and the first accused were just playing. Then, it was stated, Rehema Kingu Shabani told PW 4 and another passerby to leave the scene immediately and not tell anyone. According to PW 4, the 1 st accused was well known to her as he was a husband of Rehema Kingu Shabani, who told the passerby that Noel Stanslaus and Suzana Kingu Shabani were just playing. PW 4 stated that it was Noel Stanslaus Mauza who attacked by hitting the neck of Suzana Kingu Shabani on that material date as she personally saw in broad day light. It was added that PW 4 knew Rehema Kingu Shabani for very long time period and one Noel Stanslaus for at least two years prior to the incident of attacking the victim. PW 4 recounted the cause of failure to report that on 27/03/2024, upon receipt of the information on death of the victim she fainted and suffered nervous shock as a result of recalling the incident she had witnessed on 24/03/2024 thus hospitalized at Mission Hospital nine days. It was PW 4 that thereafter the police officers recorded her statement where she informed the Police about the incident and roles of each of the accused persons. At this juncture, PW

10 | P a g e 4 identified correctly Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu Shaban at the dock by naming and touching. In cross examination, PW 4 stated to have personally seen the 1 st accused person Noel Stanslaus hitting the victim with machete and knew the victim for long time as they were praying together at Nkungi Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania. PW 4 reiterated to have not assisted the victim because 2 nd accused, Rehema Kingu Shabani prevented her and another passerby. PW 4 added that it was 2 nd accused Rehema Kingu who first calmed passerby that nothing wrong happened as the victim and assailant were playing and the chased her and other passerby and warned them not to interfere with other persons’ affairs. Further, PW 4 stated that she and another passerby left the scene upon being chased and warned by victim’s elder sister. PW 4 re-affirmed that she knew well both Suzana Kingu and Noel Stanslaus but she did not know the owner of the house where the incident happened.

11 | P a g e PW5 : H. 2677 D/CPL Mashaka Nalima Lubinza, on 26/03/2024, he was instructed by ASP Makia Kattani, OC-CID to arrest the two accused persons on trial at Msagala Hamlet within Nkungi Village and took them to Nduguti Police Station. The suspect he arrested are named Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu Shabani @ Mswili. The suspects were suspected of murder. In cross examination, PW 5 stated that he was not aware who suspected the accused persons as his role was to arrest them having been restrained by villagers. PW6 : PF 19079 ASP Makia Kattani, who was Officer in Charge in Criminal Investigation Department (OC CID) at Nduguti Police Station in Mkalama District in Singida Region on 26/03/2024 around 12:00 to 13:00 hours when he got information of the victim’s disappearance at Msagala Hamlet of Nkungi Village on 24/03/2024 and restraint of suspects namely Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu Shaban who are brother-in-law and elder sister to the victim respectively. DW 5 stated to have directed PW 5 to arrest the suspects and hand them to Nduguti Police Station.

12 | P a g e PW 6 stated that he and other investigation officers visited Msagala Hamlet in Nkungi Village where various villagers were interrogated who informed him that on 24/03/2024 around afternoon after 13:00 hours Suzana Kingu Shabani went missing without trace despite efforts to search for whereabouts. At the scene, PW 6 stated to have seized a brown colour Kitenge clothing, “Mzula” hat with faint blue colour and sand and maize leaves with blood stains were seized, and seizure certificate was filled. It was PW 6 testimony that villagers found a piece of brown Kitenge cloth belonging to Suzana Kingu Shaban as identified by relatives, sand and leaves with blood stains and a faint blue coloured “Mzula” hat identified to belong to 1 st accused person. All the items were located at close distance at backyard of the victim’s house in maize farm direction. PW 6 noted that he was informed at the scene on existence of bad relationship between the victim and the family of Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu Shabani as husband and wife. All these exhibits were seized by PW 6 and Certificate of Seizure was filled.

13 | P a g e PW 6 narrated that on return to Nduguti Police Station he got feedback that Noel Stanslaus upon being interrogated by D/SGT Jeminus confessed to have murdered Suzana Kingu Shabani in cooperation with his wife one Rehema Kingu Shabani. He added that 1 st accused had confessed to have cut the neck of the victim, then cooperated with his 2 nd accused to cut the victim’s legs to facilitate putting the body in sulphate bag, added two stones prevent the body from emerging at the surface of Ndurumo river where the assailant dumped the body. It was both accused persons Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu Shabani were ready to show police officers the machete used to kill as it was stored at his residence under the bed. According to PW 6, he asked the accused persons on the matter and they confirmed that they had confessed D/SGT Jeminus and that each participated in the murder. PW 6 narrated that upon arrival at the scene on that evening with independent witnesses, the 1 st accused person did show the police officers the machete with blood stains stored under the bed in the accused’s’ room. At that juncture, seizure was done

14 | P a g e and Seizure Certificate was signed by both the accused person, independent witnesses and PW 6 as the Search and Seizing Officer. It was added by PW 6 that as the accused had confessed to have dumped the victim’s body on Ndurumo river and indicated the direction, PW 6 urged villagers to concentrate such on the direction of the river where the accused had confessed to have dumped the body. PW 6, stated to have directed some of the family members including victim’s mother named Wasingilya and daughter of the victim for samples to be taken to subject them to DNA analysis. On 27/03/2024, around 10:00 hours the victim’s mother and daughter arrived for Buccal Swab sample taking and around 12:00 hours the information reached the police that a body was found trapped on roots of a tree downstream from the direction the accused stated to have dumped the body. According to PW 6, the body was retrieved from the river in sulphate bag, identified fully by relatives to belong to Suzana Kingu Shabani. The neck was almost cut in its totality; both legs were cut including bones below the knee and the body was on the sulphate bag.

15 | P a g e The body was taken Mkalama District Hospital at the Out-Patient Department (OPD) where Dr. Lameck Isdory confirmed that was a dead human body, taken to mortuary for postmortem examination, and identified by the relatives to be body of Suzana Kingu Shabani. Further, PW 6 stated that after an autopsy was concluded, the medical officer was requested to take sample for laboratory Analysis of DNA and the samples handed over to Detective Corporal Emmanuel. Finally, at the mortuary, the postmortem report was filled and statement of the medical officer was recorded and the body taken to the village for burial ceremony. At this juncture, PW 6 tendered and the court admitted a record of search by police officer and certificate of seizure of brown Kitenge clothing, a faint blue “Mzula” hat and sand together with leaves having blood stains dated 26/03/2024 related to murder of one Suzana Kingu Shaban is hereby admitted and marked as Exhibit PE 3 as well as the certificate of seizure of a machete dated 26/03/2024 at 20:45 which was is admitted and marked as Exhibit PE 4 .

16 | P a g e PW 6 identified and confirm that Exhibits PE 1A, PE 1B and PE 1C are the items that he seized at crime scene on 26/03/2024. PW 6 added that the persons who confirmed to him to have confessed and led police officer to retrieval of the machete were Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu Shabani who he identified on dock. In cross- examination, PW 6 stated that the persons he identified are the ones appearing in the Information and that suspects did introduce themselves as Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu Shabani. PW 6 stated that sand and maize leaves were not tendered in court as GCLA disposed those items as they were perishable because of contamination with blood. PW 6 noted that it is correct that D/SGT Jeminus informed him that Noel Stanslaus Mauza had confessed to have committed the offence in cooperation with Rehema Kingu Shabani. The participation of Rehema Kingu Shabani was at the scene of crime and upon the murder cooperated with her husband to dispose/dump the body on Ndurumo river. PW 6 admitted that Rehema Kingu Shabani did not cut the victim but was present and assisted to conceal the murder by cooperating to dispose/dump the body on Ndurumo river.

17 | P a g e PW 6 reiterated to have identified the machete by colour of the handle as that was the most notable feature. PW 6 noted that in conducting search and seizure at Noel Stanslaus Mauza ’s residence he was guided by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. There are other laws like the Penal Code, the Evidence Act and other laws. He added that contents of Exhibits PE3 and PE 4 indicate section 35 of the Police Force and Auxiliary Services Act and section 38 of the Criminal Procedure Act which were complied with. In re-examination, PW 6 noted that the compliance to the Police Force and Auxiliary Services Act was with limitations and the search and seizure was done immediately, given the seriousness of the offence there was no need to inform the Magistrate. Another prosecution witness was PW7 , H. 3409 Forensic Corporal (F/CPL) Emmanuel Remeni Massawe stated that on 26/03/2024 visited the crime scene with OC-CID for Mkalama, ASP Makia Kattani, cordoned the scene, took photographs of exhibits while ASP Makia Kattani did seize the Exhibits which were handed over to PW 7. At Nduguti Police

18 | P a g e Station, PW 7 handed over the exhibits to G. 5387 CPL Omary around 18:00 hours with case number NDT/IR/181/2024. According to PW 7, the suspects had been interrogated and confessed to have murdered Suzana Kingu Shabani thus police officers had to go to accused’s residence to retrieve a machete hidden under the bed as instrumentality of crime. PW 7 stated that the machete was seized by ASP Makia Kattani and handed over to him for transmittal to Exhibits Keeper and that on 27/03/2024 participated in retrieval of the victim’s body from Ndurumo river where he took the photographs of the scene, the body was fully identified to be of Suzana Kingu Shabani, the body had wound cut on the neck and the legs were cut by sharp object. It was PW 7 further testimony that at Mkalama District Hospital, he photographed the body, and he was handed over with sample of a piece of meat from victim’s body for DNA analysis. PW 7 identified all Exhibits PE 1A, 1B and PE 1C to be the ones seized by ASP Makia Kattani at the scene on 26/03/2024 in the noon and in the evening respectively. PW 7 identified the first and second accused persons by

19 | P a g e name and touching stating them to have led the police to discover/retrieval of the machete. In cross-examination, PW 7 stated that it was Noel Stanslaus Mauza who opened the door of his house for retrieval of the machete and that the seizure certificate was filled after the seizure of a machete, signed by the accused/suspects and independent witnesses. It was PW 7’s evidence that u pon the sunset, the police officer of Rank of Assistant Inspector of police can conduct search at that time, that is the reason ASP Makia Kattani led the team at that time. PW 8 was Assistant Inspector Jeminus Selestino Waleka testified that on 26/03/2024 at around 12:45 was assigned by ASP Makia Kattani the Officer in Charge in Criminal Investigation Department (OC-CID) Mkalama District to interrogated and record the cautioned statement of two suspects named Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu Shabani suspected of murder of Suzana Kingu Shabani. According to PW 8, he prepared room for recording the statement including the two chairs, table and writing materials. PW 8 stated to

20 | P a g e have conducted interrogation with Rehema Kingu Shabani at 13:00 hours to 14:04 hours before interrogating second suspect Noel Stanslaus Mauza. PW 8 narrated that he identified himself as G. 3356 D/SGT Jeminus while the suspect introduced himself as Noel Stanslaus Mauza resident of Nkungi village, cautioned him to have been suspected of offence of Murder C/S 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16 RE 2022 for murdering Suzana Kingu Shabani. PW 8 stated to have informed 1 st accused person about his rights to remain silent except for voluntary/willingness to record a statement and that anything stated would be recorded and used as evidence in court against him, and the right to call a witness, friend, relative or lawyers of his own choice during the recording of statement. As the suspect Noel Stanslaus Mauza was willing to record the statement and that he needed no counsel or relative to be there thus the suspect signed before PW 8 signed signifying willingness to record the statement. According to PW 8, the recording the statement commenced at 14:09 and concluded at 16:41 hours, he gave it to Noel Stanslaus Mauza

21 | P a g e to read it after completion recording the same, whereby Noel Stanslaus Mauza was satisfied that the recorded statement was correct and did not have anything to reduce or add. The suspect signed at the end of the statement and on each page of the statement. At the end, PW 8 wrote a verification of the statement after the suspect had signed. At this juncture, a cautioned statement of Noel Stanslaus Mauza dated 26/03/2024 is hereby admitted and marked as Exhibit PE 5 . PW 8 stated that according to the statement, the body of the deceased person was dumped on Ndurumo river, the machete was stored under the bed in the accused persons’ bedroom. PW 8 added that as investigation officer, he discovered that the first and second accused persons are directly linked to the murder of Suzana Kingu Shabani. One , the accused person especially the first accused person confessed to have committed the offence on 24/03/2024 at around 15:00 hours onwards. Two , there were eye witnesses who had seen the first accused hitting the victim with machete including Elipendo Ezekiel and two others. Three , both accused persons had taken from police to place where they hid the machete used to commit murder having the blood in

22 | P a g e it. Four , the 2 nd accused did chase away persons who saw the hitting of the victim by the 1 st accused. Rehema was having a duty to watch any passerby to avoid the 1 st accused being seen while murder was being committed. At this juncture, PW 8 identified Noel Stanslaus Mauza by name and touching as well as Rehema Kingu Shabani in the same manner. In cross -examination, PW 8 stated he enumerated all the rights accorded to the 1 st accused person which were also accorded to 2 nd accused because the aim was to lay foundation for admissibility of cautioned statement of the 1 st accused person and reiterated that such cautioned statement was completed at 16:41 hours. According to PW 8, it was correct that the second accused was watching passerby to prevent seeing the murder incident and that 1 st accused upon arrival at home 1 st accused informed his wife to have completed the task. It was further averment of PW 8 that while the 1 st accused was executing murder, the 1 st accused was tasked to prevent anyone who would interfere with plan to terminate life of the victim. It was added that the 1 st accused person recorded a statement to have slaughtered the victim

23 | P a g e and kept the machete under the bed of their house and that such machete had blood stains. Further, PW 8 noted that he got directive to interrogated the accused persons on 26/03/2024 around 12:45 hours on offence of murder prior to the body being retrieved as the interrogation intended to find truth of the matter. PW 8 stated that he was certainly sure that the machete was used to murder the victim as the 1 st accused had confessed and it was retrieved following the confession. Moreover, PW 8 reiterated that identification of the victim’s body was done physically by relative of the victim including the victim’s mother and daughter. However, PW 8 was quick to state that DNA analysis intended to supplement the identification but comparison could not be done as GCLA stated that results were not obtained due to inadequate sample. The scientific analysis was only intended to supplement the existing physical identification. There is no direct evidence on the blood in the machete to be the victim’s blood.

24 | P a g e It was PW 8 testimony that murder results from one person causing death of another person with intent/motive to terminate the life as per section 196 of the Penal Code and the second accused was responsible for the murder of the victim as there was common intention for the accused persons to terminate life of the victim. The role of the 2 nd accused person played vital role to watch passerby so that the killing could not be made known to anyone. The 2 nd accused person participate in the murder. Both persons were on the scene of crime. One was cutting the victim whereas the other was watching passerby to avoid being seen. It was added witnesses including Elipendo Ezekiel, a passerby witnessed the murder and when wanted to assist the victim, it was the 2 nd accused who chased them as the distance between the way to the house where the killing was done is within 30 meters. The distance between Rehema Kingu Shabani and Noel Stanslaus Mauza was around 10 to 15 meters. In re-examination, PW 8 reiterated that roles of Rehema Kingu Shabani were: one, planning of the killing. Two, to chase the passerby

25 | P a g e who wanted to assist the victim and informing them about the play though they refused hence she chased them. Three, the 2 nd accused did reprimand the passerby never to tell anyone. He prevented all persons to assist the victim so that murder could be effected properly. On the other hand, DW 1: Noel Stanslaus Mauza stated that he started to live at Nkungi village in Mkalama District within Singida Region since 2023. DW 1 stated that on 24/03/2024, he went to graze cattle from 08:00 hours and returned around 18:00 hours in the evening to grazing land far from the residential areas and upon return saw people gathered at Suzana Kingu Shabani’s place and informed about Suzana Kingu Shabani disappearance without trace. DW 1 stated that on 25/03/2024, he participated in searching for the whereabouts of Suzana Kingu Shabani. On 26/03/2024 search was done and at around 12:00 he and his wife Rehema Kingu Shabani taken to Nduguti Police Station. Upon arrival, DW 1 stated to have been taken to a room at the Nduguti Police Station where plain clothed police did beat me in that room using club (Rungu) and iron rod (Nondo) while stating that he murdered the victim.

26 | P a g e It was further DW 1 testimony that police officers beat him on his hand and legs where he sustained scars as he was ordered to stretch his legs and hands. According to DW 1, torture took about ten minutes on that first day, repeated torture on the other day as he continued to refuse being aware of the whereabouts of Suzana Kingu Shabani. According to DW 1, having been tortured on the second day one police officer took him to same room this time beating him using a stick before relocating to another room for signing already prepared documents. DW 1 admitted to have signed the document by both thumb-print and initialized by words. According to DW 3 he continued being beaten on the third date using sticks to show the whereabouts of Suzana Kingu Shabani but allegedly stated to be unaware about the traces of Suzana Kingu Shabani. DW 1 added that on the 4 th day, he was taken to the torture room on 27/03/2024 when another person, Martin Nkau, was brought allegedly to have been also responsible for the death. As per DW 1, on the fourth day he was tortured by sticks. According to DW 1 injuries sustained were treated by pain killers at Kiomboi Remand Prison where

27 | P a g e he was taken after 13 days of the arrest. It was DW1’s prayer that this court should let pleased to find him innocent as he has not committed the alleged offence. In cross-examination, DW 1 stated that he went to graze the livestock from 08:00 to 18:00 hours of 24/03/2024 thus he was not at the scene of crime when the incident happened. According to DW 1, he never told the court about that line of defence at the commencement of the case, that he would rely on the defence of alibi and that he never indicated that fact at all until closure of the prosecution’s case. DW 1 admitted that question of alibi was just introduced at the defence case. DW 1 reiterated that he does not know one Elipendo Ezekiel and no conflict whatsoever with Elipendo Ezekiel for her to testify against him and that he saw her testifying before the court. DW 1 admitted that he recalled that Elipendo Ezekiel testified to have seen him at 15:00 hours of 24/03/2024 at the scene hitting the victim with a machete at a neck and that was no question asked about the absence of the 1 st

28 | P a g e accused from the crime scene. According to DW 1, that aspect was never cross examined by his advocate. It was DW 1’s testimony that t he distance from the grazing land to the crime scene was about 30 minutes walking distance or ten (10) minutes by motorcycle. DW 1 stated to have been arrested on 24/03/2024 by police officers, beat him consecutively and signed the papers on 26/3/2024. DW 1 was quick to admit that he never that D/SGT Jeminus had beaten him prior to signing the documents. DW 1 admitted that while PW 8 was testifying no cross-examination question was asked about torture/beating allegedly inflicted on DW 1. It was further, DW 1 testimony that he signed the documents once on 26/03/2024 and that there was no objection whatsoever on the admissibility of the cautioned statement. DW 1 testified to have not tendered PF 3 nor called the medical officer who treated him to testify in court and that some of the scars he got during his peasantry activities. According to DW 1, he did not know one inspector Jeminus prior to incident of recording/signing cautioned statement and there is no

29 | P a g e conflict or grudges between himself and Inspector Jeminus (PW 8) that would result 1 st accused being framed. DW 1 admitted that information in Exhibit PE 5 about his parents including their names, his marriage life prior to marrying the instant wife, 2 nd accused persons, his educational level, his previous petty trader for used clothing (Mtumba) in Babati Manyara and in Nairobi Kenya were correct, could not became known to anyone without narrating it to such person. Thus, D/SGT Jeminus could not have ever known such information without DW 1 personally disclosing such information. In re-examination, DW 1 reiterated that the scars resulting from the police brutality i.e. beating and torture were the ones he showed the court. DW 2 : Rehema Kingu Shabani testified to have married Noel Stanslaus Mauza since 2023 and she recalls that on 24/03/2024 nothing happened at all but on 25/03/2024, she got information her young brother Elisha Kingu Shabani via phone that Suzana Kingu Shabani was missing.

30 | P a g e Upon return home, DW 2 narrated to have found a lot of people, some were searching for the missing person one Suzana Kingu Shabani, joined the efforts on 25/03/2024 and the exercise proceeded on search. The same was the routine on 26/03/2024, in the morning there were villagers in groups of 30 youths, searched on Ndurumo river while others were searching on farms until 11:00 hours, when two police officers at the crime scene with Hamlet Chairman did take both accused persons for interrogation at Police Station. DW 2 testified that she was questioned about the whereabouts of the victim but police officers did not interrogate the victim’s mother as the Hamlet Chairman commended to police officers not to interrogate her. DW 2 stated that they arrived at Nduguti Police Station around 13:30 hours, locked up at Police cells without any information and later on they were informed to be suspects of an offence. It was DW 2 testimony that a woman police officer enquired on the information of the disappearance of Suzana Kingu Shabani and that

31 | P a g e refuted claims by another police officer named Pendo to have been responsible for murder with her husband, Noel Stanslaus Mauza. DW 2 added that she was beaten by stick on her back and her legs were beaten by club (rungu) for about 20 minutes. It was allegedly that the same trend continued on 27/03/2024 in the morning around 09:00 hours, and at around 17:00 hours, she was taken a place allegedly Mkalama District Hospital to identify the body of Suzana Kingu Shabani but she did not recognise it as the body had started to decompose. At the Mkalama District Hospital, DW 2 stated to have seen her biological mother , the child of the victim’s Sheila, her uncle and three children of her sisters as well as her daughter and young brother one Elisha Kingu Shabani. Accordingly, DW 2 added that she stayed at Nduguti police station to 09/04/2024 when they were taken to the District Court at Iramba and then taken to remand prison at Shelui where she got the pain killers at the prison. DW 2 concluded that she was facing murder offence, but she had nothing to say about the offence. Upon further questioning, DW 2 added to have never participated in the commission of the offence.

32 | P a g e In cross-examination, DW 2 stated that on 24/03/2024 there was nothing that happened at Suzana Kingu Shabani’s residence and that Elipendo Ezekiel (PW 4) had no conflict nor grudges with her at all to testify against the 1 st accused person. Further, DW 2 noted that a Police officer by name of Pendo did beat her but she never produced any PF 3 in court and admitted that she had not said anything objected anything in Elipendo Ezekiel ’s testimony in her defence. That was the totality of the evidence on record. Having heard the detailed testimonies of the parties to this case, this court is duty bound to determine if the offence in question was proved to the required standard. For offence of murder to be sustained, ingredients of the offence must be proved to exist. Section 196 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E, 2022 provides for the ingredients of murder. It states that:

33 | P a g e 196. A person who, with malice aforethought, causes the death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder. Generally, the elements of the offence appear to be three. One, there is action of causing death to another person by an unlawful act or omission. Two, there should be ill motive, in form of malice aforethought. Three, there must be a doer of the action or omission. The action or omission that is unlawful is what forms actus reus of the offence and the intention, malice aforethought, is forming the mens rea of the offence. In respect of the ingredients of the offence that legal position is well settled as stated. For instance, in the case of Alex Kapinga & Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2005) [2006] TZCA 145 (31 August 2006) (TANZLII), at pages 8-9, where the Court of Appeal stated that: Section 196 of the Penal Code provides - "196. Any person who of malice aforethought causes the death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder."

34 | P a g e From the above provision, in order to succeed, the prosecution had to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that first , the death of the deceased was at the hands of the appellants; second , that the appellants acted wrongfully in injuring the deceased; and, thirdly , that there was malice aforethought. The first aspect is whether death occurred. It is on record that death of one Suzana Kingu Shaban did occur. There is a thorough account that the victim is actually dead. The most prominent aspect to prove death is an autopsy. However, it is not the only evidence. In Yusuph Sayi & Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No.589 of 2017) [2021] TZCA 285 (8 July 2021) (TANZLII), at pages 6-7, the Court succinctly noted that: On our part, we entirely agree with the learned Senior State Attorney that an autopsy report is not the only proof of death. It is settled that the cause and incident of death can be proved by direct evidence from eyewitnesses who saw or handled the deceased's body or even circumstantial evidence - see, for instance, Mathias Bundala (supra)) and Hamisi Juma Chaupepo @ Chau v. Republic , Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2018 (unreported). As rightly submitted by Ms.

35 | P a g e Zegeli, in the instant case the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 sufficiently proved the cause and incident of death. While PW 1 and PW 2 adduced on and incident of death. While PW1 and PW2 adduced on how the deceased was hacked to death on the spot, PW3, who went to the scene in response to the alarm, confirmed to have found the mutilated lifeless body of his mother lying on the ground. Dr. Msafiri (PW4) confirmed that the deceased's skull was broken resulting in the brain to spill over and that the rest of the body exhibited a large wound on the neck and shoulder. It is on record that PW 2, Lameck Francis Isdory testified to have seen the deceased body with wound cut on the neck and both legs were cut at the knees by sharp object thus leading to death and the main cause being hypoxia as there was not oxygen going to upper part of the body, brain due to wound cut at the neck and severe bleedings. PW 2 tendered Exhibit PE 2 , which was a postmortem report that confirmed about death of the victim. This evidence was supported by oral evidence of PW 3, the victim’s daughter who testified to have identified the body of the victim and that upon conclusion of autopsy she participated in burial ceremony.

36 | P a g e Also, PW 6, ASP Makia Kattani stated to have actively participated in retrieval of the victim’s body from the Ndurumo river, took the body to Mkalama District Hospital and witnessed postmortem examination being conducted. Both PW 3 and PW 6 confirmed that victim’s neck was cut with sharp object as well as legs at around the knees. There is no flicker of doubts that death of the victim one Suzana Kingu Shaban occurred thus the element of death occurring is well established in evidence. The second ingredient is whether there exists a malice aforethought. In the case of Alfan Iddy @ Masenza vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 1027 (7 October 2025) (TANZLII), at pages 8-9, the Court observed that: It is common ground that, one of the essential ingredients of the offence of murder is malice aforethought. That being the case, the facts stated by the prosecution in the instant case were required to contain in clear terms the fact that, the appellant killed the deceased with malice aforethought. The appellant needed to be informed through the facts stated that, he had formed an intention to kill the deceased.

37 | P a g e In light of Section 200 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022, the proof of malice aforethought depends on a number of factors including the nature of weapon used to cause death, number of wounds inflicted, actions of assailant prior to and after the incident of murder and so on. The instances of malice aforethought were enumerated in the case of Six Ilanga @ Msaka vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2020) [2024] TZCA 95 (23 February 2024) (TANZLII), at pages 22-23, where the Court held that: Putting breath to the circumstances itemized above, this Court in the case of Enock Kipela vs. R , Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1994 (unreported) came up with seven circumstances where malice aforethought may be established. Those are: First , the type and size of the weapon, if any, used in the attack; in this appeal, the instrument used is alleged to be an iron bar, but that iron bar was not produced as exhibit during trial for the court to know its nature and size. Second, the amount of force applied in the assault; obviously the deceased body was bleeding in many parts as was testified by PW1 and PW3, meaning force was used. Third , the part or parts of the body the blows were directed at or inflicted; according to the testimonies of PW1, PW3 and PW4, the blows were not directed into a specific place,

38 | P a g e but the deceased was randomly beaten. Specifically, the wounds were found on hands, legs and head. Fourth , the number of blows; in this appeal it is indicated that there were many blows. Fifth , the kind of injuries inflicted; according to PW1, the injuries caused swelling of the body of the deceased. Sixth , utterances of the attacker; in this appeal the evidence including the dying declaration of the deceased, did not disclose if there were any utterance from the appellant. Seven , the conduct of the attacker before and after the killing; in this appeal, the conduct of the attacker before the event is not known save only after the event, which he behaved seemingly reasonable. Leaving the victim in the door, the prosecution considered it as a negative action, while we take it positively because that place enabled him to be attended immediately. In the instant case, whoever did the murder had malice aforethought as the nature of the weapon used to kill was lethal weapon. It is on record that: One , the victim was murdered by sharp object by cutting her neck and both legs around the knee thus resulted into severe bleedings. Two, the body of the victim was placed on a sulphate bag for disposition to evade justice. Three , the body was

39 | P a g e thrown on Ndurumo river that was flowing thus retrieved around distance downstream upon direction of disposition being revealed in confession. Four, the neck which was cut is a quite sensitive part of the body. Five , as the parties of the body both neck and legs around the knee were cut completely, it is obvious that the amount of force used was insurmountable. The first set of evidence on guilt or otherwise of the accused persons is based on confession. There are two main limbs of confessional statements. The first limb is the evidence of PW 8 who recorded the 1 st accused person’s confessional statement. The evidence of PW 8 both oral and documentary evidence contained in Exhibit PE 5 have cemented on existence of the offence of murder in this case. It is on record that the 1 st accused person one Noel Stanslaus Mauza confessed before on Detective Corporal Jeminus to have committed the offence of murder of one Suzana Kingu Shabani. The role of confession in establishing the crime commission is well entrenched in this jurisdiction. It can lonely

40 | P a g e form the basis of the conviction if the court is satisfied that it was made voluntarily and it admits all ingredients of the offence. Partly the confessional statement reads: Nilifika nikafungia ng'ombe zizini na kumsimulia mke wangu kisha nikamwambia narudi kwa SUZANA D/O KINGU SHABANI kumtia adabu, Mke wangu akakubali hivyo baada ya kumaliza kula chakula cha mchana nikachukua panga nikamwambia mke wangu REHEMA kwamba awe anaangalia kama watu wanakuja ili wasinione wakati naenda kumtia adabu SUZANA. Si mbali ni kama mita mia tu. Nilipofika nilimkuta SUZANA nje ya nyumba yake akichambua maharage, nilimsalimia kabla hajaitikia nilimkaba na kumvutia nyuma ya nyumba yake kwenye shamba la mahindi. Alikuwa amefunga kanga moja tu kifuani, ndani alivaa chupi rangi nyeusi, wakati namvutia shambani ile kanga ilidondoka akabaki na hiyo chupi, mimi sikujali nilipomfikisha kwenye shamba ndani umbali wa mita 30 kutoka nyumbani kwake nikamchinja shingoni kwa kutumia panga yangu, nilipoona amekufa nikaacha mwili wake hapo hapo akiwa uchi nikaondoka hadi nyumbani. Nilimsimulia mke wangu REHEMA kuwa nimemaliza kazi, mke wangu akanieleza kuwa huenda kuna mtu ameniona wakati namuua SUZANA kwa sababu watu

41 | P a g e walipita njiani jirani na hapo na alishindwa kunitaarifu na nilikuwa nimemkaba SUZANA kwa muda huo. Saa 20:15hrs nilirudi nyumbani tukajadiliana na mke wangu kwamba tuutoe ule mwili pale na kuutupa mtoni ili kuficha ushahidi, nilichukua panga na mfuko wa salfeti mweupe tukaongozana na mke wangu hadi pale ulipo mwili. Tuliupakia mwili wa SUZANA kwenye mfuko huo ikiwa ni baada ya kukata miguu yote wawili ili uweze kuenea kwenye mfuko huo. Niliubeba mwili huo ndani ya Mfuko hadi kwenye mto Ndurumo umbali wa mita kama 400 hivi. Kwa kushirikiana na mke wangu tuliweka mawe mawili ndan i… It is on record that both accused persons planned, executed the common mission to terminate life, and decided to dispose/dump the victim’s body on Ndurumo river to evade justice. While the 1 st accused person was executing the killing by cutting the neck of the victim, the 2 nd accused was managing persons who were passing over that land. The contents of Exhibit PE 5, the cautioned statement, reveal clear, and direct to admission of the ingredients of the offence which do not require no interpolation at all. That being the situation, there is clear

42 | P a g e admission of malice aforethought in commission of the offence by the accused persons. In Maduhu Malelemba @ Mwigeti vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 93 (24 February 2026) (TANZLII), at pages 16-17, the Court succinctly held that: The foregoing extract leaves no room for doubt. The appellant's own words constitute a clear, direct and unequivocal admission of his active participation in the murder of the deceased. He meticulously recounts the genesis of the land dispute, the recruitment of Nhila Igugula to execute the unlawful design, the calculated planning and execution of the midnight attack, the killing itself, and the subsequent steps taken to conceal his involvement. In our considered view, the narrative bears intrinsic marks of authenticity and personal knowledge consistent only with that of a perpetrator of the crime. Indeed, upon a thorough examination of exhibit P3, we are satisfied that it squarely falls within the statutory meaning of a confession as envisaged under section 3 (1) (b) and (c) of the Evidence Act. The contents of the cautioned statement are couched in terms that go beyond mere exculpatory narrative. Its tenor and substance disclose an admission of facts

43 | P a g e which, taken together, constitute all the essential elements of the offence charged. It is settled law that a confession, once shown to have been voluntarily made, does not, as a matter of strict law, require corroboration. Nonetheless, as a matter of prudence, a court must satisfy itself of its truth before acting upon it. The second limb is oral confession leading to discovery. In the instant case, the evidence of PW 6, and PW 7 stated that the first accused person having confessed to PW 8 to have murdered the victim using a machete, he confirmed the same orally to PW 6 and he led the team of investigation officers to his home under his bed where a machete with blood stains was recovered, tendered in this court and admitted as Exhibit PE 1C. The accused also in the confession had informed the police officers to have disposed off the victim’s body in river Ndurumo whereas the body of the victim was recovered around 400 meters downstream. As such, the confession by the accused led to discovery of the lethal/ sharp object that was used to murder the victim and retrieval of the victim’s body from the river where the accused had confessed to have dumped it.

44 | P a g e Such confession is what in this jurisdiction had been established to be confession leading to discovery which is admitted despite absence of cautioned statements. In Simon Idakus Luoga vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 1045 (7 October 2025) (TANZLII), at pages 18-21, the Court held that: In the case of Mboje Mawe v. Republic [2011] TZCA 136 where, as is more or less in the present instance, the appellant had made an oral confession and given information leading a team of police officers to discovery parts of the body of the deceased which he eventually exhumed, this Court had this to say among other things: “It is also important to point out that in giving that confession this appellant was not operating under a state of fear or threat. Finally, the significance of this confession lies in the fact that he stated where the body parts were buried and eventually on arrival at his house, he dug them out himself. In essence therefore, this was ”a confession leading to discovery.” In fact, it will be recalled from the evidence of PW7 at page 132 of the record that the first appellant requested all involved to be arrested before he could show the body parts. We are aware that in his defence this appellant said that the body parts were unearthed by the police. With respect, this assertion is not borne out

45 | P a g e by the evidence on record. PW1 and PW2 Yusufu Ramadhani, who were independent witnesses so to say, were positive that it was the first appellant himself who showed where the body parts were buried and eventually dug them out. As also held by this Court in Hadija Salum and Another v. Republic , Criminal Appeal Nos. 11 and 32 of 1996 (unreported), the "confession leading to discovery" in this case is sufficient corroborative evidence of the oral confession before PW1 and PW7. Indeed, if we may add here, the oral confession in the context in which it was also made before PW7 leading to the discovery of the body parts is relevant and fell within the ambit of the provisions of Section 31 of the Evidence Act (Cap. 6 R.E. 2002)…” Totality of the evidence of PW 6, PW 7 and PW 8 reveals that the accused persons confessed to the commission of the offence of murder and accused stated the whereabouts of the instrumentality of crime, include the machete used to murder the victim. As such, the evidence from the accused persons themselves to have committed the alleged offence is so crucial to establish the offence in question. The guidance can be found in plethora of authorities. For instance, it was held that confession was the best evidence as held in the case of Chande Zuber

46 | P a g e Ngayaga & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2020) [2022] TZCA 122 (18 March 2022) (TANZLII), at page 13, the Court of Appeal stated that: It is settled that an accused person who confesses to a crime is the best witness. A similar position had been taken earlier in the case of Alex s/o Ndendya vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2017) [2020] TZCA 201 (6 May 2020) (TANZLII), at page 15, where the Court held that: In this regard we are tempted to reiterate our position in the case of Peter Sanga v. R ., Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2008 (unreported) which quoted the case of Twaha Alli and 5 others v. R. , Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2004 (unreported) where this Court stated that:- " An accused person who confesses his guilt is the best witness ." By passing, it is important to note that the confessional statement of the 1 st accused person, was recorded voluntarily and well within time prescribed by the law. The completion of recording of the same was at 16:41 hours of 26 March 2024 which is well within the four hours duration permitted by law from the time accused persons were arrested.

47 | P a g e It is on record that prosecution evidence reveal that both accused persons were arrested by PW 5 at 12:45 hours of 26 March 2024.The duration include the time spent in course of movement from Nkungi Village to Nduguti Police Station. This was supported by defence that they arrived at Nduguti Police Station at around 13:30 hours. Also, there is nothing on record revealing any complaint that any rights of the 1 st accused person was violated prior to record, during recording or after recording of the statement. The defence never objected the admissibility of the cautioned statement signifying that all requirements of law were complied with. This court is satisfied that all the requirements under sections 51, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 R.E. 2023 were duly complied with in course of recording the contents of Exhibit PE 5. Second set of evidence is the direct evidence by an eye witness of the incident. It is on record that PW 4, Elipendo Ezekiel stated that on 24/03/2024 while on her way from Mng’anda village to Nkungi village at around 15:00 hours in the afternoon in the first houses of Nkungi Village from the bridge saw the 1 st accused person, one Noel Stanslaus Mauza

48 | P a g e hitting/cutting the victim on neck with a machete, then taking the body at the backyard of the house. PW 4 reiterated that immediately, the 2 nd accused appeared and when she narrated the incident, 2 nd accused Rehema Kingu Shaban and elder sister to the victim that 1 st accused and victim were just playing as brother and sister-in-law, there was nothing for the passerby to worry and ordered the witness to leave the scene. PW 4 accounted for failure to report the matter that upon hearing about the retrieval of the victim’s body and knowing her being lifeless she suffered nervous shock leading her to hospitalization at Mission Mwangaza Hospital for nine days and upon recovery she was summoned to Nduguti Police Station for recording a statement. According to PW 4 she identified that the victim was one Suzana Kingu Shaban as they were praying together at Nkingu Lutheran Evangelical Church of Tanzania, the assailant was one Noel Stanslaus Mauza and the person who assured her the victim was safe as the duo were just playing was also well known to her for long time, one Rehema Kingu Shabani, the 2 nd accused person. PW 4 stated to have known the 1 st accused person for period of two years prior to the incident date while the 2 nd accused was well known for longer period.

49 | P a g e It is lucid that the identification was proper given that the event happened during broad daylight at around 15:00 hours, both assailants and the victim were well known to the witness of the Prosecution specifically PW 4 and the distance was within the perimeters of one capable of seeing what is happening as it was few meters from the road where the witness was from scene of crime. The law is clear that where the factors favouring identification exists including identification in daylight and prior acquaintance making the recognition reliable then such identification would be regarded as proper identification -See Director of Public Prosecutions vs Daniel Wasonga (Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2018) [2022] TZCA 418 (12 July 2022) (TANZLII), at pages 11-12; and Yohana Charles Mgoli & Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 268 (6 March 2026) (TANZLII), at pages 16-18. However, this court is also mindful that PW 4 did not report the matter immediately. It took her about fifteen days to record her statement at Nduguti Police Station. It is on record that PW 4 accounted for the failure to report. One, she was assured by the 2 nd accused

50 | P a g e person who happened to be elder sister of the victim that victim and assailant were playing and there was nothing to worry. Second, on hearing of death of the victim, PW 4 suffered shock that resulted to her hospitalization as the recounts of the events haunted her to have witnessed but could assist for reasons of assurance she got from victim’s elder sister. In the case of Frank Stevini @ Chansensi & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 396 (10 April 2026) (TANZLII), at pages 11-12, the Court observed that: This Court has now and then stressed that the ability of a witness to name a suspect at the earliest possible opportunity is an all-important assurance of his reliability in the same way as unexplained delay or complete failure to do so should put a prudent court to inquiry. For instance, in the case of Jaribu Abdallah v. The Republic [2003] T.L.R. 271, the Court said: “ In matters of identification it is not enough merely to look at factors favouring accurate identification; equally important is the credibility of the witness. The conditions for identifications might appear ideal but that is not a guarantee against untruthful evidence. The

51 | P a g e ability of the witness to name the offender at the earliest possible opportunity is in our view reassuring though not a decisive factor. ” [Emphasis added]. The court had observed in its earlier decision that failure to name the assailant timely should be considered case by case. It does not apply in wholesome manner whenever there is failure to name the assailant evidence of such witness deserves disregard. For instance, in Selemani Hassani vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2021) [2022] TZCA 127 (22 March 2022) (TANZLII), at pages 17-18, the Court of Appeal illustratively reiterated that: However, we must hasten to say that the above principle must not be made to apply reflexively without having due regard to the particular circumstances of the case concerned. We think that while it can apply fairly unrestrictedly in respect of, say, cases involving property offences, it will not apply with equal force in cases concerning sexual offences where immaturity of the victim, death threats or shame associated with such offences may dissuade the victim from reporting the matter with promptitude. In this regard, we wish to quote,

52 | P a g e with approval, the observation by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in the People of the Philippines v. SPO1 Arnulfo A. Aure and SPO1 Marlon H. Ferol, G.R. No. 80451 , October 17, 2008: “ Delay in reporting an incident of rape due to death threats and shame does not affect the credibility of the complainant nor undermine her charge of rape. The silence of a rape victim or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without toss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated. It is a fact that the victim would rather privately bear the ignominy and pain of such an experience than reveal her shame to the world or risk the rapist’s making good on his threat to hurt or kill her. ” In the instant case, the complainant was a child of tender years and that she testified that the appellant threatened to slaughter her if she divulged the details of the sexual molestation. At her age, she must have been frightened that the appellant would retaliate had she divulged the details. Besides, the delay in reporting the incident was for about a day, which, in our view, is not unreasonably long. By any yardstick, PW1 was a vulnerable person who could not be expected to report her ordeal swiftly unless a conducive and assuring setting for questioning was created. That

53 | P a g e is why she initially kept crying uncontrollably when her mother interrogated her to find out what the matter was with her. Furthermore, we think that it is significant that no evidence was led that the complainant was prompted or actuated by an improper motive in making the accusation against the appellant. The eye witness, PW 4 provided a thorough account for her failure to report the matter timely. As the evidence of eye-witness is not solely the basis of imposing the liability of the accused persons in the circumstances of this case, there is nothing to doubt on the credibility of PW 4. The evidence is only corroborative of other existing evidence on record. The third ingredient is whether the accused persons are responsible for murder of the victim, Suzana Kingu Shabani. This need not to detain this court. It has been noted that there exist two sets of evidence on record on participation of both accused persons in the commission of the offence. The confession which caters for both accused persons form one part of the set of participation of both accused persons in commission of the offence. This is exemplified by

54 | P a g e oral testimonies of PW 6, PW 7 and PW 8 respectively and Exhibit PE 5 which is a cautioned statement. The second set is that of eye witness. According to evidence on record, PW 4 stated categorically to have witnessed two main aspects on that fateful date. One , she saw the 1 st accused person cutting the neck of the victim and taking the victim to backyard of the house. Two , she met the 2 nd accused person who when informed about her young sister being attacked by machete, she responded that the duo -1 st accused and victim were just playing. Then chased PW 4 and other two persons who were passing at that area. Three , the 2 nd accused warned and prevented PW 4 and other passerby not to inform anyone about the incident that was none of their concerns. Similarly, this evidence supported PW 8, Assistant Inspector of Police Jeminus who testified to the effect that both accused persons actively participated in the commission of the offence of murder. Simply, evidence on record reveals that both accused persons had a common intention to ensure that the victim’s life was terminated.

55 | P a g e The law is settled that where two or more person acting with common intention to commit a crime, those persons will be jointly liable despite having played different roles towards execution of that common intention. In the case of John Steven & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 292 of 2013) [2014] TZCA 224 (24 September 2014) (TANZLII), at pages 13-14, the Court held that: In the case of Godfrey James Ihuya v. Republic (supra), the Court stated that to constitute a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose, such as to beat a so called thief as a result of which he dies, it is not necessary that there should have been any concerted agreement between the accused persons prior to the attack of the so called thief. Their common intention may be inferred from their presence, their actions and the omission of any of them to dissociate or distance himself from the assault. In other words, where it is proven that people embarked on committing an offence and murder resulted from their common intention, it is legally irrelevant to determine who inflicted the killer blow. In the case of Mathias Mhnyeni and another v. Republic , the appellants were convicted of murder in the High Court. The first appellant enlisted the second

56 | P a g e appellant in assaulting the deceased whom he had suspected of having an affair with his former concubine. On the material date the second appellant held the deceased's hands to prevent the deceased from fleeing and from defending himself against the assault. That court convicted both appellants of murder on the basis of the doctrine of common intention. In upholding the decision of the trial High Court, this Court held that:- "Where a person is killed in the prosecution of a common unlawful purpose and the death was a probable consequence of that common purpose each party to the killing is guilty of murder. ” In our present case, there are factors which persuaded the trial High Court to invoke the doctrine of common intention. It is certainly that on account of available evidence on record both accused persons are responsible for the offence in question as each actively participated in facilitation the killing of the victim. It is on account of totality of evidence of record that leaves no flicker of doubts that the accused persons committed the offence of murder. It is settled law that where confession exists and the court is

57 | P a g e satisfied that such confession was made voluntarily the offender deserves conviction. For instance, in the case of Sami Nzalia @ Kisenga vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 113 (25 February 2026) (TANZLII), at page 14, the Court held that: The confessions offered the strongest evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on its own. There was also the evidence of PW2 who saw the appellant killing his aunt, and the evidence of the medical doctor who confirmed the cause of death. The motive behind the killing was established by the appellant himself in his confessions that, he was suspecting his aunt of witchcraft. There was also a land dispute between them, proving a motive to commit the murder. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant made such confessions voluntarily and that, the confessions were not obtained through any form of intimidation or enticement. We thus find that, the prosecution discharged the burden of proof with the requisite standard, and we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the confessions were voluntary and not made as a result of any inducement, threat or promise. There is also sufficient evidence apart from the confessions that established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt as demonstrated hereinabove.

58 | P a g e In the case of Joseph Deus @ Sahani & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2019) [2022] TZCA 411 (11 July 2022) (TANZLII), at pages 14-15, the Court observed that: In the case of Mohamed Haruna Mtupeni and Another v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2007 (unreported), the Court observed that: “ The very best of the witnesses in any criminal trial is an accused person who freely confesses his guilt." It is therefore our considered view that, in the current appeal, what is contained in the appellants' confessional statements is the best evidence, we can have, on what happened on that fateful night. However, this court is fully aware of the established principle of law that criminal liability of an accused person cannot be based solely on a confession of a co-accused. It is on record that Exhibit PE 5 , which is the cautioned statement of the 1 st accused that admits the criminal liability of both the 1 st and 2 nd accused persons. Such confession may form basis of the conviction subject to compliance with statutory requirements of corroboration. This was the legal position in the case of Mgwasi Jumanne Wapori & Another vs Republic (Criminal Appeal

59 | P a g e No. 699 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 355 (26 March 2026) (TANZLII), at pages 17-18, the Court succinctly held that: The trite law is that, as a matter of general principle, the evidence of a co-accused may be used to found a conviction against his co-accused. This is in terms of section 33 (1) of the Evidence Act which stipulates as hereunder: “33 - (1) When two or more persons are being tried jointly for the same offence or for different offences arising out of the same transaction, and a confession of the offence or offences charged made by one of those persons affecting himself and some other of those persons is proved, the court may take that confession into consideration against that other person." [Emphasis added] The key condition, which is also a statutory requirement, for consideration of the confession against a co-accused is that, there must be another set of testimony that corroborates the co- accused’s testimony . This imperative condition is a prescription under sub-section (2) which stipulates as follows: "Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (1), a conviction of an accused person shall not be based solely on a confession by a co-accused." Noteworthy, the corroborating evidence may be in the form of circumstantial evidence or by

60 | P a g e looking at the conduct or words of the co- accused . The evidence of PW 4, Elipendo Ezekiel was lucid and unchallenged that on material date having witnessed the 1 st accused person attacking the victim on neck with a machete, the 2 nd accused person did things which circumstantially proves that she was part and parcel of the plan. One , she informed PW 4 that the assailant and victim were just playing. Two , when PW 4 questioned the nature of the play using lethal weapon, a machete, 2 nd accused person told PW 4 and others to leave the scene as it was not their matters of concern. Three , prevented PW 4 and another passerby to assist the victim. Four, PW 4 and another passerby were warned not to tell anyone about anything the saw. All these points out to one direction of active role in the commission of the murder. The defence case did not raise any reasonable doubts in the case of the prosecution. It can be noted that basis of the whole defence case is based on three main aspects. One, defence of alibi of the 1 st accused person. Second, the alleged torture of the 1 st accused. Third, that there

61 | P a g e was no active role of the 2 nd accused person in the commission of the offence. On defence of alibi, the law is clear that such defence must be notified at the earliest time and the latest being before closure of the prosecution’s case. In the case of Yohana Charles Mgoli & Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 268 (6 March 2026) (TANZLII), at page 23, the Court held that: It is settled law that where an accused person intends to rely on the defence of alibi, he is required to give notice of that intention to the trial court and the prosecution before the hearing of the case commences (see section 194 (4) of the CPA). If such notice cannot be given at that early stage, the accused person is required to furnish the prosecution with the particulars of alibi at later stage but before the prosecution closes its case (see section 194 (5) of the CPA). Where the defence of alibi is raised belatedly during the defence case, the trial court is entitled to take cognizance of it but, in the exercise of its discretion, may accord no weight to it.

62 | P a g e The Defence raised the alibi at the defence was lucidly raised belatedly and in contravention of the law thus this court finds it to be an afterthought. There is no need to accord any weight to the evidence based on the defence of alibi having been found the same as a clear afterthought on part of the 1 st accused person. On the other hand, having failed to object admissibility of Exhibit PE 5, the cautioned statement, it is clear that the 1 st accused person was at the scene of crime at that material time of occurrence of the murder. The contents of Exhibit PE 5 places the 1 st accused person to crime scene defeating any possibility of alibi. In Ahadi Brown Mwaigwisya vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2023; Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 77 (23 February 2026) (TANZLII), at page 9, the Court held that: Having perused the record of appeal and considered the submissions by the parties, we agree with Mr. Aboud that exhibits P2 and P3 were properly admitted in evidence as, indeed, the record of appeal bears it out at pages 33 to 35 that the same were admitted without any objection from the appellant on their admissibility. In the circumstances, we equally respectfully agree with

63 | P a g e Mr. Aboud's submission that the appellant's complaint under these grounds is an afterthought. The second limb of defence evidence on torture similarly fell into the same ditch of afterthought. One , the admissibility of the cautioned statement was never objected nor any serious matter raised against it during admission. Also, there was no any cross-examination questions trying to poke holes on the Cautioned statement. In Maduhu Malelemba @ Mwigeti vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 93 (24 February2026) (TANZLII), at pages 12-13, the Court extensively reiterated that: In the instant case, PW6 tendered the cautioned statement and no objection was raised by the appellant or his counsel at the time of its admission. The appellant later alleged that he was subjected to torture and coerced into making the statement. However, a careful perusal of the record of appeal reveals that the allegation of torture arose only belatedly and was not supported by any credible evidence. There is nothing in the record of appeal to indicate that the confession was procured by threat, inducement. As correctly submitted by Ms. Masule, the law is settled that an accused person who intends to

64 | P a g e challenge the admissibility of a statement must do so at the stage when the prosecution seeks to tender it, and not during cross-examination or at the stage of defence . In Juma Kaulule v. Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2006) TZCA 144 (2 November 2009 (TanzLII), we held that: "...in the circumstances, we do not think that Exh.P3 was wrongfully admitted. We are reinforced in our view, first by the record of the appeal which we presume was correct, that there was no objection, if the appellant had intended to object to its admissibility he would have done so at the admission stage, and not raise it in cross exam ination or during the defence. " See also Shihoze Seni & Another v. Republic (1992) T.LR 330 and Selemani Hassan v. Republic , (Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 2008) TZCA 325 (22 March 2010 TanzLII). In the absence of any objection at the proper stage, the trial court is not required to hold an inquiry suo motu of the voluntariness of the statement. This principle was affirmed in Stephene Jason and Another v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1999 (unreported). Had the appellant objected at the proper stage, the trial court would have been enjoined to conduct an inquiry into the voluntariness before admission. Even where a confession is admitted, the

65 | P a g e court retains a duty to evaluate the weight to be attached to it in light of all surrounding circumstances, a duty which the learned trial Principal Resident Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction duly discharged. Two , the evidence of DW 1 and DW 2 stated that despite the 1 st accused having signed the document sometimes on 26 March 2024 allegedly whose contents were unknown to him, the police officer continued beating the 1 st and 2 nd accused persons for other three days of the signing. The lingering question is what would be the use of torture to the 1 st and 2 nd accused persons in any subsequent dates having already confessed. It defeats all sense and logic. Thus, such evidence is considered a clear afterthought in attempt to exonerate oneself. The evidence is so overwhelming that neither the 1 st accused person nor the 2 nd accused person was tortured to extract confession. According to evidence on record, the accused persons voluntarily confessed to the offence and provided information that led to discovery of the machete using to murder the victim as well as the retrieval of the victim’s body on Ndurumo river downstream from point that accused

66 | P a g e persons stated to have disposed the body. There was nothing on record to warrant this court entering a finding that neither of the accused person was tortured nor forced to record a cautioned statement. The defence has failed to raise any reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. In the circumstances, the defence evidence has not impaired the consistent, lucid and articulate evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The last aspect would be whether in the circumstances of the case the Prosecution had managed to prove the case to the required standard. In criminal cases, it is the first and foremost duty of the Prosecution to prove the case to the required standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubts. This is ambit of Section 3(2)(a) and Section 117 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E. 2023. In the case of It is settled principle in criminal cases, that the prosecution is duty bound to prove the case. The burden of proof never shifts and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. We are also guided with other principles that, charge is a foundation of criminal trial.

67 | P a g e It is on record that Prosecution in this case rallied oral evidence of eight witnesses who essentially tendered evidence to the effect of demonstrating the accused persons active role in the murdering of the victim, the manner the killing was executed indicating high level of heinous termination of life without any probable cause, assailants’ confessions leading to discover both instrumentality of crime and the body of the victim and existence of death. These were testimonies of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6, PW 7 and PW 8. Such evidence was supported by Exhibits PE 1A , 1B and 1C which were brown Kitenge clothing, a “Mzula” hat type belonging to the 1 st accused and machete that were used to execute the plan. Also, Exhibit PE 2 demonstrated that death happened and the name of victim stated after relatives ’ identification and the cause of death was stated to be hypoxia secondary to traumatic amputation of neck with severe bleedings. Also Exhibits PE 3 and PE 4 , were the seizure certificates done on 26/03/ 2024 for retrieval of the exhibits and Exhibit PE 5, the confessional statement of the 1 st accused. Totality of these documents

68 | P a g e reiterated existence of correlation between the Exhibits 1A , 1B and 1C corresponding squarely with Exhibits PE 3 and PE 4 as well as Exhibit PE 5. The real objects namely the retrieved machete ( Exhibit PE 1C ), the victim’s Kitenge clothing (Exhibit 1A) and a “Mzula” hat machete (Exhibit PE 1B) which connected the accused persons, especially 1 st accused person with crime scene had been handled carefully with elaborate oral chain of custody. On record, PW 6, ASP Makia Kattani was the seizing officer who handed over the real objects to PW 7 Forensic Corporal Emmanuel upon seizure and PW 7, Corporal Emmanuel handed the same PW 1 SGT Omary who kept them Exhibits Store having registered them in the Exhibit Register and he is the one who tendered the same in court. That demonstrated sufficiently that chain of custody was not broken. In the case of Chacha Jeremiah Murimi & Others vs Republic (Criminal Appeal 551 of 2015) [2019] TZCA 52 (4 April 2019), at pages 23-24, the Court of Appeal reiterated on chain of custody. It stated that: In establishing chain of custody, we are convinced that the most accurate method is on documentation as

69 | P a g e stated in Paulo Maduka and Others vs. R ., Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2007 and followed in Makoye Samwel @ Kashinje and Kashindye Bundala , Criminal Appeal No. 32 OF 2014 cases (both unreported). However, documentation will not be the only requirement in dealing with exhibits. An exhibit will not fail the test merely because there was no documentation. Other factors have to be looked at depending on the prevailing circumstances in every particular case. For instance, in cases relating to items which cannot change hands easily and therefore not easy to tamper with, the principle laid down in Paulo Maduka (supra) would be relaxed. Both oral, real and documentary evidence of the Prosecution managed to squarely address all the ingredients of the offence without a flicker of doubts whatsoever. There was nothing at all to be desired that would have impaired the evidence of the Prosecution. In the case of Hezron Ndone vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 15 (6 February 2024) (TANZLII), at pages 12-13, the Court of Appeal stated that:

70 | P a g e It is momentous to state that, in our criminal justice system like elsewhere, the burden of proving a charge against an accused person is on the prosecution. This is a universal standard in all criminal trials and the burden never shifts to the accused. As such, it is incumbent on the trial court to direct its mind to the evidence produced by the prosecution in order to establish if the case is made out against an accused person. This principle equally applies to an appellate court which sits to determine a criminal appeal in that regard. In our earlier decision in Phinias Alexander and Others v. Republic , Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2019 (unreported), we cited with approval the decision in Jonas Nkize v. Republic [1992] T.L.R. 214 in which the High Court stated that: "the general rule in criminal prosecution that the onus of proving the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution, is part of our law, and forgetting or ignoring it is unforgivable, and is peril not worth taking." The term beyond reasonable doubt is not statutorily defined but case laws have defined it, in the case of Magendo Paul & Another v. Republic (1993) T.L.R. 219 the Court held that: “For a case to be taken to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt its evidence must

71 | P a g e be strong against the accused person as to leave a remote possibility in his favour which can easily be dismissed.” It is thus settled view of this court that the prosecution has discharged its duty to prove the case to the required standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecution has left nothing to be desired. There are is nothing to warrant this court to find any loopholes in the prosecution’s evidence that can amount to create reasonable doubts denting that evidence of prosecution. Thus, the Prosecution managed to discharge the onus to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Having so found, it is the finding of this court that the 1 st accused person one Noel Stanslaus Mauza and second accused person, Rehema Kingu Shabani are responsible for causing death of the deceased one Suzana Kingu Shabani. I therefore find both the accused persons guilty of the offence and I hereby CONVICT NOEL S/O STANSLAUS MAUZA and REHEMA D/O KINGU

72 | P a g e SHABANI for the offence of Murder contrary to Section 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022. It is so ordered. DATED and DELIVERED at Dodoma this 4 th day of June 2026. SENTENCE Having considered squarely all the law providing for the sentence, the appropriate sentence appears to be a singular one as demonstrated by Section 197 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022 which provides for the penalty for murder case which is of mandatory nature to be death sentence and vide provisions of section 26(1) of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022 and Section 341(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 20 R.E. 2023 the convict must suffer death by hanging. In the premises, the convicts NOEL S/O STANSLAUS MAUZA and REHEMA D/O E.E. LONGOPA JUDGE 04/06/2026.

73 | P a g e KINGU SHABANI , who have been convicted for murder is hereby sentenced to suffer death by hanging. It is so ordered. E.E. LONGOPA JUDGE 04/06/2026.

Judgment

1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DODOMA SUB REGISTRY) AT DODOMA SITTING AT SINGIDA CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 1310 OF 2025 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS

NOEL STANSLAUS @ MAUZA
REHEMA KINGU @ SHABANI JUDGMENT Date of last order: 01/06/2026 Date of Judgment: 04/06/2026 LONGOPA, J.: The accused persons, Noel Stanslaus Mauza and Rehema Kingu Shabani stood arraigned for the offence of Murder Contrary to Section 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, Cap 16 R.E. 2022. It was alleged that the accused persons on 24 th day of March, 2024 around 15:00 hours at Nkungi Village, within the Mkalama District in Singida Region jointly and together did murder one Suzana D/O Kingu Shabani. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty to the offence they stood arraigned. This necessitated the Prosecution to call a total of eight

73 | P a g e KINGU SHABANI , who have been convicted for murder is hereby sentenced to suffer death by hanging. It is so ordered. E.E. LONGOPA JUDGE 04/06/2026.

The Republic vs Noel Stanslaus @ Mauza and Another (CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 1310 OF 2025) [2026] TZHC 2982 (4 June 2026)

Judgment

Discussion

The Republic vs Noel Stanslaus @ Mauza and Another (CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 1310 OF 2025) [2026] TZHC 2982 (4 June 2026)

Judgment

Discussion