Chuki Ally Chamkaa vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1997) [1999] TZHC 116 (15 January 1999)

\ TN 'l'HF. HTGH 1.0IJR'T' OF 'T'AN7.ANTA A'T' __ DAR __ F.S SALAAM_ .1.RTMTNAL APPRAT. NO. 14 OF 1qcn (Orig·inritir1g from t.hP. KisrirriwP. District. Court. Criminril C:risP. No. 5q of 1qqn) C:HtJT<T AT.LY. CHAMT<AA. . .... A PPF. T. T.A N'T' VF.RSOS 'T'HF. RRPUHT.Tr:. .RF.SPONDEN'J' · .T U T) G F. M R N 'r KAT .. EGRY A . ,T . 'T'he App~llrint, C:huki .Ally C:hrimkriri .. wris c:hrirgP.n rinci convir.t.Rrl .. together wit.honR ,Tllalriko:·Hrilfrif.ii wi-t.h RripR r.\s'·110 rind 111. rind unnatural offRnr.R c\s 154(1) of t.hR PenAl Code :rinci erir.h sent.enr.Rn to.10 yeArs Ano .8 yerirs imprisor,ment. for t.hA n=:~sper.t.ive r.ount.s of rape ,3pd · unnrit ur;:i 1. off Frnr.e r1nd sent.P.nr.es were orrlerec'I t.o run conr.ureot,1 y. 'T'hR r.1 erir AV i dP.nr.e At1rh1r.P.c'I by thR prosP.r.11t. ion " . ;. ~· . ' est.Abl:i shed heyr'>nrl doubt.. t.hrit t.he t.wo persons i ntRrr.ept.P.d. rin .oh1 lady rig-Ad rihmft. 70 yRrrrs rino rP.pRrit.ea l y, one ri/J:er Another .. r;:iped and so<lomi sP-<'I ·nfir. 'T'he rir.t. w;:is r.ommi t.t.ecl in hr i ght oAyl i ght .... Anrl . . . . for.t.unat.Aly ;i vi,l'.l'n.gA mnt.e p011·nr.P.c'I on t.hem Ano :=.rived the old lady. The P-Vi.dP-ncR being so obvious .. nRithP.r-t.hR Appe] lrint. nor h i.s· -i::6·f t"enoRr sought. .'.ha 1 l engR t.hP. r.onv i r.t. ion. 'T'he AppR 1.1 ant. -· . ... , has only appealed r1r st:·: st.enc:e arguing t.hr.1t. he wris undP.r 1.8 years at. the t.imR o convir.t.ion. t.h;:it. t.hA r.our.t. did not. ·hot.her t.o . At•' • investigate .hJ._.i"'; ~,~~-as •.. i.t followed whol.P.·s.::ilP. the· nr, :>Pi.nion ( Exh. P2) . 1 ... Mr. Gonc'!we _;. learned St.;:it.e At.t.orney :n r.ounterP.d hy · ins i :=;t. i ng thnt. the r.oJJrt.· rict..ed. pr-operl y r1s cluA invest. i grit.ion w;:is mric'le .. On the r.i:,rcoro·;:iv;:iilrihlA T ;:in1··s;it.isfiRd .hrlt.thP. court. right.ly r:onclw1e<1 .t.ht. Appellr1nt. w;is rihove 18 yAar::; oln. 1

ram r.1warP. of the guiding principlP.s that the court i_s not bound by a doctors rP.port as it is just nn opinion P.vioRnce , (Sungu v R (1971) HCD 185); that i.n horderJinP. cases the convict should be given the hRnefi.t. of douht wherP. thRrP. is no clear evidence Of birth or baptismal cert.if icate or relatec'l wh.i ch make the age certain. r have d11ly con~idered all thi.s hRfore arriving at. the conc.1 us ion I havP. i n<l icated. 'T'he record shows that thR tri;:il court w,::is vP.ry particular on this issue Anc'l especia]ly after AppRllant had claimed that he was twelve years ol<l. 'J'hP. court did not si.mply rely on the PF'1 but went. furt.hP.r ancl crll lP.cl thP. a11thor rlR ,::i wi tnP.ss. 'T'his wi tri°P.RR WP.nt into dP.tAi ls on how tJ-1P.y dP.t·P.nninR thP. r1gP. of r1 pP.rsnn Ann conclurlP.d in t.hP. orocess that. AppP.llant. was ovP.r 18 yA;:irs.- 'T'his

• ' court witnP.ss clP.posRcl, "'J'o dP.termi nR thP. aaFi of ,::i DRrson mP.d i call v WP. takR thR pP.rsnn's-histori~ A person's hitory co11ld he oht.a i ned through his pA rRnts to know t.he <'lat.A of his birth. Tt r.011lrl RVRn he obt·.A·inP.cl from neighbours. WhRrP. thRrR an no pArRnts nr nP. i ghhollrs to Ask d11r i ng thA exam.i nAt. ion of thR person_. WA URA A t.hi ng known as Mi lest.on ........... . By the USA of mi.lest.on WP. ohsP.rvR thP. following t.hings:- whether t.hP. pArsnn' s honP.s WP.TR grown np - 1.ong honP.s ...... whP.thRr heArcls or whAthP.r hrR;:ists WP.TR big a n cl s t. i. f f . I RX Ami nee'! t.hR ?.no Ac:c11sP.c'l ...... hy 11s1 ng 1.hR mi 1 P.st.nn mP.t.hocl ;:incl T follnd t.hAt. t.hR ,::icc:11sRd WAS ahovR thR age of Ri.ght.Ren YAArs". Responcling to Ac:c:usP.c'l's (AppRllAnt) qrn=!stions_. t.hA RAid witnRSR wP.nt furt.hP.1· .. "T conc:l udRd t.hr1t you WP.re ;:ihnvR R i ght.RP.n yA;-n·s of AgP. .::iftfff P.XAmi ni ng __ your body mRcli cAl l y .. T found that your muscles were grown up_. you hAd long hnnAs, wi c'le chest., ha i. r on your pr i v.::i t.e parts and ynur waist wns wide Rnough". /,

• • Trer1d i. ng on th i.s, r1no on its own r1ssessment. the court. concludeo, "'T'he r.ourt hAs her1rrl the evidenr.e nf the rloctor ..... The r.ourt. hAcl t.he ;:i<'lvant.Age of see·i ng t.he ?.nd accused as well. The r.ourt is ;:ictually sAt.isfied that 1·.he ?.nd acc1isRd wr1s ;:ibovA e i ght.eAn yP.ars of ;:igP. bP.cr1use he was wA l l grown up. He had ;:i st.iff f;:icp, ;:incl strong musr.lAs on his legs ;:ind arms". T h;:ive lr1hourP.o to quote the ;:ihove in ordFff to estah1ish that. the r.011rt. dRt.r1 i le<'! l y and p;:i i nstr1k i ngl y cnns ·i dRred thA issue .. and in the circumstances T have no rP.r1son t.n diffAr with its finding th;:it ;:iccuseo (now AppAll;:int) w;:is .. by thRn.- ovRr 18 yR;:irs of age. The AppRllant. sRems to hnVR heen ;:iware of the Advantages of being under 18 ye;:irs and h;:is ;:ill ;:i long put it up ;:is ;:i protRct ion hut. without. ser i ousnRss ;:ind consist ency t.o hAr.k it. 11p. For exr1mplP..- whi]P. he told thR trial r.011rt that. hR wAs only 12 i.n his memoran<'lum of ADDA Al he hail ;:i l rea<'lv f oraot. ten th j s . - - - - cooked 11p story .. for .. he therein mRntionerl th;:it he hAd told the trial court. that hR w;:is 1.7 yeArs ol<'l. NoL only 1.hnt.- whilR Arguing his appeAl hRfore t.his court he gAve another vRrsion.- "T still m;:iint.nin that J ;:im st.ill young. (;urrRnt.ly T ;:im 1 6 yRars. When T w;:is conv i.cted T was 1 !'l yRArs". Th;:it sett.led, ;:inother mr1tt.er to consider 1s whether the trial court. WAS leg;:iJ ly correct in impos·i ng t.hR 10 anr) 8 yRArs' imprisonment for rape ;:incl 1m lriwfu l offences n~spect i vel y. Apri rt ftom the ohvious far:t. that. the trial court. P.xcee<'led its jurisdictional limit of 8 years in sentencing_: ;:ind Although t.hP. Appellant. and his co-nffendP.r's acts attract 11nreserved condemnation from all circles for it is unexpl;:iinAhlP. t.hat such grr1ndchildren could commit 11nprintr1hle ;:icts ;:is they did on a

person f i. t. to h A th A i r gr Ann 111 o the r l F! t A l n n P. U1 A po s s ·i h i l i t. y t h ;:i t she co11Jd have lost hAr lifA in thA process, considAring thAir age (hoth ;:igen ;:irnuml twenty ye;:irs) long cust.oni;:il sAntAnce rn;:iy destroy them furthAr inst.eAd nf mn11lding them into good citiens. On thAse considerAtions the sentences irnposAd by the District Court are set aside and suhst i. tuted thereof Are sentencAs of 5 :years imprisonmt=mt on each count.. Th.is is in nspect of the Appellant. At the sametime .. in exBrcise of t.his court's revisional powers, the sentences imposed on Jua]ako Hal.fani who never appealed, are also set Asi<le and substituted thereof is the same sentencBs as subs ti tutBd and· imposed on Appell;:rnt. Sentences on both counts to run concurrently. Tn conclusion_. savB As reg;:irds the suhst. i 1.uted sP.ntences the appeal is <lismissed. (T.. R. K;:i]egAy;:i) :rnnc::F: ·-···--·-··-··-·--- Juogement oA1 i verecl t.oclay the 15th .T;:inuary .. 1999 .1 n the presence of Mr. Mderne, State Attorney . . I 4 (L. R. K;:ilegey;:i) ,TlJDC::F: 15\1\1999