R. v. Mlatende Crim. Sass No. 233-D-1970; 16/6/71; Onyiuke J.

 

R. v. Mlatende Crim. Sass No. 233-D-1970; 16/6/71; Onyiuke J.

The accused was divorced from his wife in 1969 after living with her for 8 years. He moved to a nearly house where he lived as a tenant on the nigh in question the accused, after securing the front and back doors of his former wife’s house, set fire to it. The wife awoke and after vainly trying the doors, broke out through a wall of the hut. She later rescued a child who was in the hut, and another person in the hut also escaped. The accused was charged with arson c/s 319 (a) and attempted murder c/s 24 of the Penal Code.

Held: (1) “Turning to the charge of attempted murder I directed the assessors that nothing suffices as mental ingredient of the offence accept the specific intent to kill. Intent to cause grievous harm is not enough. The intent to burn a house in which persons live or the actual firing of a house with persons therein does not necessarily evidence the requisite intent to kill. There must be something in the circumstances either an act of commissions or omission which clearly manifests intent to kill. I am satisfied that such act exists in this case. The positive steps taken to prevent escape by the inmates of the house established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended the inmates of the house to burn to death.” (2) “As the facts disclosed two offences constituted by two acts, namely, setting the house on fire (Arson) and securing the from and rear doors of the house from outside and firing the house (attempted murder) the accused can be convicted and punished for both offences and the counts should not be regarded as alternative. In Myano s/o Ilene v. R. (1951) 18 E. A. C. 317).” (3) Found guilty on both counts as charged.