The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal lodged by a resident of Chato district in Geita Region, Shija Juma, challenging the life imprisonment sentence imposed on him for raping his neighbour’s three-year-old girl.
Justices Engela Kileo, Sauda Mjasiri and Bethuel Mmilla ruled against Juma, the appellant, having noted that there was overwhelming evidence showing that the offence of rape was proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution.
“The sequence of events as narrated (by the mother of the victim) provided a clear and concise account of what had transpired. Her account is fully supported by the testimony of the medical doctor.
We therefore have no basis of disturbing concurrent findings of facts of the two courts below,” they said. According to the justices, both the trial court and the first appellate court (High Court) reached a concurrent finding that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim and the two courts reached that finding after believing the evidence of the victim’s mother, which was corroborated by the doctor.
They also noted that the conduct of the appellant during the trial left a lot to be desired. It is on record that he jumped bail for almost two years. The appellant also escaped when being held by the Village Executive Officer prior to being taken to the police.
The justices said, therefore, that an adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant for running away. During hearing of the appeal, Juma had complained, among others, that he was condemned unheard, which resulted into trial court to convict him of the offence and sentenced in absentia.
However, in the instance case, the justices said, the complaint raised by the appellant has no basis because he jumped bail and did not appear in court for hearing before the close of the prosecution case.
The case proceeded in his absence in terms of section 226 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. They noted that the appellant was arrested nearly two years after the judgment was pronounced.
He was taken before the trial court in line of section 226 (2) of the CPA in order to explain his absence. “He failed to come up with any viable explanation for his absence,” the justices concluded.
It was alleged during the trial that on the material day when the offence was committed, the little girl had accompanied her mother to the farm. While her mother was working in the farm and the little girl was eating yams, along came the appellant, who was the neighbour with the victim’s mother.
The appellant volunteered to take the girl home. The mother readily allowed her daughter to leave with the appellant. No sooner had they left the girl came back to the farm crying and she was holding her skirt and walking with difficulty in short paces.
She informed her mother that the appellant had raped her. The mother was shocked and in disbelief went straight to the appellant’s house, but could not find him. She went to a shopping centre where she found the appellant’s father, the appellant himself and her husband.
The mother narrated to them what had transpired. She later reported the incidence to the Village Executive Officer, who ordered the arrest of the appellant. While being held by the village officer, the appellant broke the lock and ran away, but he was eventually arrested by the victim’s father.
Leave a Reply