IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC

OF TANZANIA
IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF BUKOBA
AT BUKOBA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SESSIONS CASE NO. N o.l OF 2015
THE REPUBLIC
VERSUS
1. FIKIRI JUMANNE
2. HASSAN GASTON
3. SHUKURU MAHENDEKA
4. DESDERY DOMICIAN
5. MWESIGA MSORORO

Date o f last Order: 26/10/2018

Date o f Judgment: 30/10/2018

JUDGMENT
MALLABA, J.

The accused persons Fikiri Jumanne, Hassan Gaston,

Shukuru Mahendeka, Desdery Domician and Mwesiga Msororo,
stand charged with the offence of attempted murder, contrary to
Section 211(b) of the Penal Code [Cap. 16 R.E.2002]. It is alleged in
the Information that, the accused persons, on 11th day of October,
2013; at Kizule - Kyota Village within Muleba District in Kagera
Region, did attempt to murder one Nasri Elias. The accused persons

Page 1 of 21
pleaded not guilty to the charges facing them and hence this case
had to proceed to full trial.

In order to prove the case against the accused persons, the

prosecution brought five witnesses and in the course of hearing,
two exhibits, namely PF3 as well as a sketch plan of the scene of
crime, were tendered and admitted as exhibits. In defence, all the
accused persons testified on oath as witnesses. In addition, three
other witnesses testified for them.

PW1 was Nasri Elias, the victim of the crime. He is a resident

of Kyota Village at Kizure fishing camp in Muleba District, Kagera
Region. He testified that, on 11.10.2013 as he was outside his
house, at about 7:15pm, he saw six people who included Fikiri
Jumanne, Desdery Domician, Shukrani Mahendeka and Mwesiga
who came and demanded boat transport. The witness told them
that, he had no boat or other means of transport. Immediately,
Fikiri Jumanne held the witness’ hands by his back while Desdery
Domician who was holding a cooking pot (sufuria), poured onto him
some liquid. His body started itching and some blood oozing from
his body. He raised alarm. People responded by coming to the
scene. After people had responded to the alarm, PW1 was taken to
Muleba Police Station where PF3 was issued to him and then he
was hospitalized at Kagondo Hospital.

Claudia Gervas testified as PW2. She is a resident of Kimwani,

Kyota Village. She stated that, on 11.10.2013, she was at home
frying fish. Her camp house is about 10 paces from that of PW1. At

Page 2 of 21
about 7:15pm, she heard an alarm of a person saying “wananiua,
mnisaidie jamani”. She responded to the alarm. When she went to
house of PW1, she saw seven people, that is, Desderi, Fikiri,
Hassan, Shukrani, Mabele, Mwesigwa and Mafina holding Nasri
Elias while Fikiri and Desderi were holding a cooking pot with black
liquid, trying to force PW1 to drink the same. She stated that, they
later on poured the liquid onto his eyes and hands. The witness and
people who assembled after the alarm washed Nasri Elias with
water for purposes of diluting the liquid, soothing the victim and
later on took him to the up-land area where transport facilities
could be available.

PW3 was Dr. Peter Innocent Kabyemela. He is from Rubya

Hospital. He stated that, on 11.10.2013 at 11:15pm, he was at
Kagondo Hospital where he was called to attend a patient named
Nasri Elias. The later was swollen on the eyes. PW3 was informed
that, PW1 had some liquid poured onto him. He filled the PF3 which
the patient came with from the Police. He tendered the PF3 which
was admitted in court as exhibit PI.

PW4 was one Muswadiku Idrisa. He is a farmer residing at

Kyota Village, Kimwani Ward. He testified that, on 11.10.2013 at
around 8:30pm, he received a phone call from Mr. Nasri Elias,
telling him that, he should go to pick him at Kizule Hamlet on a
motorcycle and take him to hospital. Before reaching Kizule, the
witness met Nasri Elias at Katurule. PW4 stated that PW1 had his
face swollen. As he asked Nasri Elias of what had happened, the

Page 3 of 21
said Nasri Elias replied that, it was Fikiri, Shukrani and Mabele
Mahendeka who had injured him. The witness took Nasri Elias to
Muleba Police Station where he was given a PF3 for medical
treatment. Then PW1 was taken to Kagondo Hospital.

PW5 was F.2249 D/CPL Hamis. He is a police officer in the

OC-CID’s office at Muleba Police Station. He is in the investigation
department. He stated that, on 18.10.2013, while at the police
station, he was assigned by the OC-CID to investigate a case
relating to assault causing bodily harm (shambulio la kudhuru
mwili) of one Nasri Elias, who by then was admitted at Kagondo
Hospital. He went to the hospital but he was informed that, Nasri
Elias had been referred to Moshi for further treatment and that at
the time, he was at his home in preparation for the Moshi safari. He
went to P W l’s home at Muleba and recorded his statement. Nasri
Elias, among others, told the witness that, he identified the
perpetuators through torch light. He identified them as Fikiri,
Shukrani Mahendeka, and Mabele Mahendeka. On 19.10.2013, he
went to the scene of crime at Kyota, where he arrested Shukrani
Mahendeka and Mabele Mahendeka. In other words, he failed to
arrest Fikiri, the only other mentioned person. While at the scene of
crime, he was led by the Kizule Hamlet Chairman, one Rweyemamu
Benard, to draw a sketch plan. He tendered the same and it was
admitted as exhibit P2.

At the end of the prosecution case, this court ruled that, the
prosecution established a prima facie case requiring the accused

Page 4 of 21
persons to defend themselves. The defence case commenced
accordingly.

The first accused, Fikiri Jumanne was the first defence

witness (DW1). He testified that; he is a peasant and a resident of
Kyota Village, Kazilamuyaga Ward in Muleba District. He testified
further that, on 11.10.2013, he was at home attending his sick wife
who had a problem of blood oozing from the nose since 09.10.2013.
He treated her by use of local herbs. He admitted to know the other
accused persons in this case but declined to have taken part in
attacking the victim of the crime (PW1). He stated also that, he was
arrested in November 2013 in relation with the incident of attacking
Nasri Elias. He challenged the prosecution evidence for being shaky
in that, the claimant claimed to have identified the assailants
through moonlight whereas others stated that, they identified them
through other light sources.

DW2 was Hassan Gaston, the second accused. He is a

fisherman at Kizure Kyota Village within Muleba District. He also
resides at Bumbile Island and also at Runzewe, Kahama District in
Shinyanga Region. He stated that, on 11.10.2013, he was at his
home at Runzewe in Shinyanya Region. After moving to Kizule, he
was told by Claudia (PW2) that, Fikiri Jumanne and Shukrani
Mahendeka poured some acid onto her husband. After some time,
he was arrested at Muleba Police Station as he went to raise a claim
for his money against another person. He denied to have taken part
in attacking Nasri Elias.

Page 5 of 21
 The third accused person, Shukrani Mahendeka, testified as
DW3. He is a peasant of Kigulamo Village in Kimwani Ward within
Muleba District. He testified that, on 11.10.2013 at between
4:00pm to midnight, he was at his home. At 6:00pm, his cattle
came from pasturing. The cattle keeper informed him that, one of
the cows was missing. He started looking for it from neighbours.
They returned home at 10:00pm after managing to get it from their
neighbour’s kraal (zizi). He became aware of the incident of attack
on Nasri Elias on 19.10.2013 when he was arrested by the OCS for
Kyamyorwa Police Post. He denied to have attacked Nasri Elias.

Another defence witness was the fourth accused person,

Desdery Domician, who testified as DW4. He is a businessman who
owns three residences, one in Bugolola Village in Misenyi District,
the second is at Kyamyolwa Village in Muleba District and the third
one is at Kyota Village, Kimwani Ward in Muleba District. He
testified that, on 09.11.10.2013, he went to Mwanza by Bunda Bus
where he was going to buy fishing nets as his business was that of
distributing nets to fishermen and then collecting the fished fish.
He arrived in Mwanza in the evening and stayed at his in-law’s
house. His in-law is called Rongino Wilbard. On 10.10.2013, he
went to the shops to purchase the fishnets. He was not successful.
He returned to Muleba by bus and arrived at Muleba Bus stand on
11.10.2013. He tendered two bus tickets and the same were
admitted as exhibit D 1 collectively. He denied to have taken part in
attacking PW1 and challenged the charges against him as a
fabrication.

Page 6 of 21
 DW5 was Mwesiga Severine Msororo, the 5th accused person.
He is a resident of Lulanda Village, Lulanda Ward in Muleba
District. His preoccupation is fishnets mending. He testified that, on
11.10.2013, he was at Kibingo Hamlet mending nets of one Gerald
Msoke up to 8:00pm. Thereafter, he boarded a motorcycle to Kyota
and slept at the house of one Mikidadi, as he would mend his nets
on the next day. On the next day, as he was mending nets, he
heard that there was an incident of Nasri Elias being attacked by
some liquid being poured on him.

DW5 further testified that, on 25.12.2015, Nasri Elias sent his

wife Claudia Gervas (PW2) to bring to him, nine nets for mending.
He mended them but he was told by Nasri to return them to him
without the requisite payment. He refused returning the nets
without being paid. According to the witness, Nasri Elias told him
that, if he did not return the nets to him, he would join him in this
case. He was called by the police on 19.01.2016 and joined in this
matter. He questioned as to why he was not mentioned by any
witness other than the complainant and his wife. He declined to
have taken part in this matter. He was of the considered view that,
this matter is planted and a fabrication.

Anastazia Constantine testified as DW6. She is a resident of

Kizule Village in Muleba District. Fikiri Jumanne is her husband.
She stated that, on 11.10.2013 she was at home being attended to
by her husband, DW1, for the problem of blood oozing from her
nose. She testified that, as they used local herbs, she could not be

Page 7 of 21
taken to hospital. She did not hear of this incident until her
husband was arrested after one month.

DW7 Magere Mahendeka is a resident of Kagulano Village,

Kimwani Ward in Muleba District. He engages in cattle keeping and
peasantry activities. He stated that, the 3rd accused person
Shukrani Mahendeka is his son. It was his testimony that, on
11.10.2013 at 6:00pm, he was at home, where he was informed by
his cattle keeper that, one cow was missing. He sent Shukrani
Mahendeka (The 3rd accused), Makeleano Juma, Alfred Jumanne
and the cattle keeper one Alex Juma to look for the same.
Thereafter, at 10:00pm, they brought the missing cow. He did not
hear of the incident of attack of PW1 but on 19.10.2013, one man
arrived at his home and arrested Shukrani Mahendeka.

The last defence witness was Rongino Wilbard, who testified as

DW8. He is a resident of Miembeni B Street in Mwanza Region. He
stated that, on 09.10.2013, he was at his home in Mwanza when
Desdery Domician arrived at about 4:00pm saying that, he wanted
to purchase fishing nets. The next day he went on with his normal
activities while Desdery Domician went to purchase nets. In the
evening, he found Desdery Domician at home saying that, he had
not got the nets he was looking for. On 11.10.2013, Desdery
Domician returned to purchase nets but later as he called him, he
said he did not find the nets and he had decided to leave for Muleba
by Bunda Bus. Later in the evening, the witness called Desdery

Page 8 of 21
Domician by phone asking if he had arrived but the reply was that,
he was approaching.

Briefly, that is the summary of the evidence by the two sides in

this matter, that is, for the prosecution and for the defence. On the
basis of that evidence, this court will now move to analyse the same
to see if the prosecution has established the accused persons’ guilt
to the required standards.

As earlier on pointed, the accused persons are charged with

the offence of attempted murder c/s 211(b) of the Penal Code. The
respective section of the Penal Code provided as follows:

“Any person who -

(a). . . .
(b) With intent unlawfully to cause the death of
another, does any act or omits to do any act
which it is his duty to do, the act or omission
being of such a nature as to be likely to
endanger human life,

Commits an offence . . . ”

Being a criminal offence, it is the prosecution side which has

the duty to prove the charges against an accused persons, beyond
reasonable doubts. This is in accordance with Section 3(2) (b) of the
Law of Evidence Act (Cap. 6 R.E. 2002). The case of Tymos Asao V
R (1967) HCD No. 251, among many others, also restated that same
position.

Page 9 of 21
 In the present matter, where the accused persons are charged
with the offence of attempted murder c/s 211(b) of the Penal Code,
it is the prosecution side which has the duty to prove beyond
reasonable doubt; two ingredients of the offence, that is: one, that
with intent to unlawfully cause the death of another, a person did
an act of such a nature as is likely to endanger human life; and
two, that it is the accused person who did that act.

In regard to the first element, there is evidence that, some

liquid were poured onto the body of one Nasri Elias (PW1). The
complainant himself, Nasri Elias (PW1); PW2 (Claudia Gervas); Dr.
Innocent Kabyemela (PW3) who examined the complainant; PW4,
Muswadiku Idrisa and PW5, F.2249 D/Cpl Hamisi, all testified to
the effect that, indeed some liquid was poured onto the body of the
complainant (PW1). However, there is no evidence whatsoever, to
show as to what that liquid was. In his evidence, PW3, the doctor
who examined PW1, did not say what that liquid was. Even the PF3
which PW3 filled, did not in any way help as it ought to. From the
PF3 and also from the testimony of PW3, it was clear that, the
doctor was informed that, the liquid poured onto PW1 was
suspected to be acid. In the view of this court, the doctor (PW3)
ought to have made his own finding as to whether the injuries that
he observed, were consistent with any type of acid being poured
onto PW1. Unfortunately, PW3 did not make any finding that can
make this court come to a conclusion that acid was poured onto
PW1. In the circumstances of this matter, the doctor was the only
expert in a position to convince this court to make a finding that

Page 10 of 21
what was poured onto PW1 was acid. As a result, this court is
hesitant to conclude that what was poured onto PW1 was acid. If
acid had been established to have been poured onto PW1, this court
would not have hesitated to come to a finding that, indeed there
were intention to murder PW1. As already indicated, there is no
such proof.

In the circumstances, the only other way to see if there were

attempt to murder PW1, is by looking at the nature of the injuries
that PW 1 sustained and the condition of PW 1 after the incident.

Considering the nature of the injuries and the condition of

PW1, in the view of this court, they were not of the nature as to
make any reasonable person conclude that death was contemplated.
First of all, immediately after the liquid was poured onto PW1, the
complainant was in a stable condition such that, he was personally
able to call and talk to PW4. In the view of this court, this could not
have been the case if PW1 had suffered life threatening injuries.
Secondly, the complainant had recovered by 18/10/2013, that is 7
days after the incident, such that he was able to record a police
statement. Although PW3 stated that PW1 had just been referred to
Moshi (KCMC), PW5 stated that, on 18/10/2013, he was no longer
at Kagondo Hospital. At the same time, he was not at KCMC.
Rather, he was at home. Life threatening injuries normally take long
to cure. With life threatening injuries, PW1 should have been moved
from Kagondo Hospital straight to the Moshi Hospital. At the
moment, there were also no evidence at all that PW1 went to Moshi.

Page 11 of 21
According to PW5 and also according to the PF3, PW1 appears to
have previously been charged with the offence of assault causing
bodily harm. In the view of this court, in the circumstances, that
would be the befitting charge in the present matter even now. Thus,
this court finds that, in the present matter the evidence does not
establish that the accused persons deserved to be charged with the
offence of attempted murder. Rather, if any, it is the offence of
assault causing bodily harm which deserved to face them.

In the circumstances, the other issue that needs to be looked

at, is whether it is the accused persons who caused whatver
injuries. Are the accused persons the ones who assaulted the
complainant causing bodily harm?

The evidence in proof of that element is essentially one of

identification. In this regard, in the celebrated case of Waziri Amani
V. R (1980) TLR 250, the Court of Appeal stated on evidence of
identification as follows:

. . the first point we wish to make is an

elementary one and this is that the evidence of
visual identification . . . is the weakest and most
unreliable. It follows therefore, that no court
should act on evidence o f visual identification
unless all possibilities o f mistaken identity are
eliminated and the court fully satisfied that the
evidence before it is absolutely watertight. . . it must
be shown on the record a careful and considered

Page 12 of 21
 analysis of all surrounding circumstances o f the
crime being tried. . . ”

The case of Waziri Amani (supra) cited, gave the

circumstances to be considered in order to eliminate all possibilities
of mistaken identity to include; one, the time the witness had the
accused person under observation; two, the distance at which he
observed the accused person; three, the conditions in which such
observation occurred - was it day or night; four, whether there was
good or poor lighting at the scene; five, whether the witness knew
or had seen the accused person before or not; and six, whether the
identification was made by the witness after a long period of
observation or in satisfactory condition by a relative, neighbour,
friend, workmate and the like.

In the case of Mathew Stephen @ Laurence V. R, Criminal

Appeal No. 16 of 2007 (unreported), the Court of Appeal added two
more circumstances to those stated in the Waziri Amani Case. It
added circumstances that, seven; whether in the course of
observing the accused person, did the witness face any obstruction;
and eight, whether, considering the whole evidence before the
court, there were any material impediments or discrepancies
affecting the correct identification of the accused person by the
witness.

In the case of Emmanuel Luka and 2 Others V. R, Criminal

Appeal No. 325 of 2010 (CAT-Mwanza) (unreported), the Court of

Page 13 of 21
Appeal exemplified on how the Case of Waziri Amani (supra)
should be applied. It stated that:

“The test, in our view, should be objective as opposed

to subjective. Objective in the sense that when
considering the eight (8) circumstances as
enumerated above, or others, the court should
always bear in mind the ordinary conditions under
which the witness lives or was subjected to as an
ordinary person o f his class. Such conditions would
be, fo r example, the kind o f place where he was or
lived; the intensity of the light (hurricane, lamp,
moonlight) and the like. The court should not invoke
the subjective test when evaluating the guidelines in
Waziri Amani case. It should not, fo r example, judge
by its standards (that of the class o f a judge or
magistrate); o f what would be the situation if there
is no electricity, fenced houses; where the victim or
witness is well versed in matters related to law or
other professional life . . . ”

In other words, the Case of Waziri Amani is not supposed to

be taken as “mwarobaini” in every case of visual identification. This
court agrees with that, because that is the position which was also
stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Mussa Mbwaga V. R.,
Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2013 (CAT-Mbeya) (unreported), which

Page 14 of 21
was cited by the learned State Attorney in her final submissions,
where it was stated:

“In addition to the much cited guidelines from the case of

Waziri Amani V. Republic (1980) TLR 250, subsequent
decisions o f the Court of Appeal have enlightened further,
leading to a considered view that the said guidelines are
not {azadirachtaindica (mwarobaini)’ to all cases o f this
kind. It is worth noting further that those guidelines
need to be given a purposive interpretation as
circumstances o f each case determine the fate o f the
parties involved. Therefore those guidelines ought to be
considered objectively. Generally, the court should
consider the following before arriving at its decision

• The kind o f light that existed and its intensity.

• Time taken by the witness to have the accused
person under his/her observation.
• The distance between the assailant and his victim.
• Whether the victim knew the assailant before the
fateful moment. I f so, when and how often.
• The whole evidence considered, were there any
material impediments or discrepancies, affecting
correct identification of the assailant by the
witness.

Page 15 of 21
 • In the court o f such observation o f the assailant by
the witness was there any obstruction experienced
by the witness”.
This court will consider the issue of identification of the
accused persons on the basis of the position of the law as amplified
in cases from Waziri Amani V R (supra), Mathew Stephan @
Laurent V R (supra), Emmanuel Luka and 2 othes V R (supra)
and ultimately Mussa Mbwanga V R (supra).
In all those cases, the first thing to consider in clearing every
possibility of mistaken identity, is the kind of light that existed at
the scene and its intensity. On this, in the present matter, in the
first place, there is a contradiction or inconsistence as regards the
source of light. PW 1 testified in court that, the source of light was
moonlight. On the other hand, PW2 testified that, at the time, it had
not become so dark. In other words, she claimed to have identified
the perpetuators because of daylight. Yet, in the statement that
PW1 gave to the police, he stated that it was dark and identified the
perpetuators by a torch. This is also what came from the evidence
of PW5.
The position of the law as regards contradictions and
inconsistencies in evidence is that, material discrepancies or
contradictions affect the credibility of the respective witnesses. If
the contradiction and discrepancy is material, then the respective
evidence need to be jettisoned or disregarded. However, if the
contradiction and contradictions or discrepancies are not vital or
material, then they don’t affect the credibility of the witnesses or the

Page 16 of 21
evidence itself. In the view of this court, where the only evidence
that connects the accused persons to commission of the offence is
that of visual identification or even of recognition, and the
contraction or discrepancy is in regard to the source of light that
enabled such identification or recognition, that is a major
contradiction or discrepancy. This is because the same shakes the
basic version of the prosecution story. For witnesses who observed
the same incident, it is incomprehensible that one could remember
observing the incident through moonlight, the other by daylight and
the other by torch. Such a discrepancy or contradiction may only be
consistent with tutored testimony. Although this court is not
inclined to make a finding that the witnesses in this matter were
tutored, such discrepancies and contradictions create a very
serious doubt on the credibility of the witnesses involved. Such
discrepancies and contradictions do not eliminate all possibilities of
mistake in identification.
The other problem flows from the first one. None of the
witnesses described the level of brightness of whatever source of
light each mentioned. If the identification was by moonlight, it was
not described as to how bright was the moonlight. If it was by
daylight, it was not described how was bright the daylight at the
time of the day, specifically, at 7:15pm; and if it was by torch, it
was not descried as to how bright it was. Without being clear on the
brightness of the source of light, it is difficult to eliminate the
possibilities of mistaken identification or recognition.

Page 17 of 21
 The above deficiencies are farther complicated by the fact that,
witnesses and more so PW1, were not consistent with how many
persons he identified at the scene. This is because, in his testimony,
he mentioned six persons. However, when he met PW4, immediately
after the incident, he mentioned only three persons, that is Fikiri,
Shukurani and “mtoto wa Mahendeka” . PW1 also mentioned a
different number of people to the police, that is to PW5. He
mentioned three names of Shukurani Mahendeka, Mabele
Mahendeka and Fikiri. In his statement and mentioned a much
longer list in his additional statement to the police which he gave a
week later.
In this regard, it was stated in the case of Misofi Ndebile V. R,
Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2013 (CAT-Mwanza) (unreported), that:-

“This court has persistently held that failure on the

part o f a witness to name a known suspect at the
earliest and appropriate opportunity renders the
evidence o f that witness highly suspect and
unreliable”
In the view of this court, naming a different number of
perpetuators and names at different occasions also makes the
evidence of the respective witness highly suspect and unreliable.

Then there is the issue of PW1 and PW2 differing on the

number of perpetuators who were involved in the incidence and on
the roles played by the perpetuators. Whereas PW1 stated that

Page 18 of 21
there were six perpetuators, PW2 stated there were seven. On the
roles played by the perpetuators, PW1 stated that Fikiri held him by
the back and Domician poured the liquid. On the other hand, PW2
stated that, Fikiri was the one holding the cooking pot. Also,
whereas PW 1 stated that the perpetuators immediately held him by
the back and poured the liquid on him, PW2 stated that, the
perpetuators started by trying to force PW1 to drink the liquid
before pouring it on the face and eye.
As regards the difference in numbers of the perpetuators, this
court is of the considered view that, that is not a major discrepancy.
The same can innocently happen and thus, in itself, it may not
affect the evidence of both PW1 and PW2.
However, as regards PW1 and PW2 differing in their account of
the roles played by the perpetuators, that one is a vital discrepancy.
When witnesses observe the same incident, it is normal for a person
to forget what role was played by who and to testify accordingly.
However, if two witnesses go on to specifically state what role was
played by each, any contradiction or discrepancy in that is a
serious and major discrepancy or contradiction and it affects the
credibility of both witnesses. This court is of considered view that,
the credibility of PW1 and PW2 is affected by such contradictions or
discrepancies.
All this put together, it makes the prosecution evidence of
visual identification and recognition of the accused persons highly
doubtful such that it cannot be the basis of conviction of the
accused persons. Through such evidence, the prosecution has

Page 19 of 21
failed to eliminate all the possibilities of a mistaken identification or
recognition.

In defence, all the accused persons, raised the defence of alibi

of some sort. They all claimed that they couldn’t have been at the
scene of crime at 7:15pm. DW1 claimed that, he was attending his
sick wife and the wife came to provide support as a witness. He
claimed that, he was in his house all day. The second accused
claimed that, he was at Runzewe village in Kahama District,
Shinyanga Region on the material date and time. The third accused
claimed that, at the material time, he was looking for their missing
cow. He brought his father as a witness on that (DW7). The fourth
accused claimed that, on the material date and time, he was in
Mwanza or on the road back to Muleba. The fifth accused claimed
that, on the material date and time, he was mending nets
elsewhere. Of the accused persons, only the 4th accused gave notice
of his intention to raise the defence of alibi in accordance with
section 194 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap.20 R.E.2002]. In
view of the fact that this court has found the evidence of the
identification and recognition doubtful, the defences of alibi for all
the accused persons, with or without notice, raise a reasonable
doubt against the prosecution case.

The 1st and 3rd assessors, who were the only ones who
attended at the stage of the summing up to assessors, were of the
opinion that, the accused persons are not guilty of the charges they

Page 20 of 21
are facing. The prosecution had failed to prove their guilty. This
court agrees with the two assessors.

In the final analysis, this court finds that, the prosecution has
failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond
reasonable doubts. This court agrees with the two assessors in this
regard. As such, the accused persons are hereby found not guilty of
the charges against them, and they are accordingly acquitted of the
charge of attempted murder c/s 211 (b) of the Penal Code, for which
they stood charged.

Page 21 of 21