Solomon s/o Ulaya v. R., E.A.C.A. Crim. App. 10-DSM-72, 19/10/72.

 

Solomon s/o Ulaya v. R., E.A.C.A. Crim. App. 10-DSM-72, 19/10/72.

Held:   (1) The views of assessors in High Court trials may not be taken on the matter of sentence, which is for the judge alone to decide.

            (2) A case of manslaughter in which no weapon is used and the death could not have been foreseen from the nature of the assault is not one deserving severe punishment.

SPRY, AG. P. – The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He was under the influence of drink, annoyed at food not being ready and aimed a kick at his wife. In fact he kicked his mother. This caused a ruptured spleen and she died.

            While we entirely agree with the learned judge that killings resulting from drinking are far too common, this was a case where no weapon was used and where fatal consequences could not have been foreseen from a single kick. The act of the appellant was unlawful, and he was rightly convicted, but we cannot regard it as a case that merits severe punishment.

            As Mr. Jadeja has pointed out, there was an irregularity in the procedure, in that assessors were appointed and their views taken on the matter of sentence. This is contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code, under which sentence is a matter for the judge alone.

            The appeal is allowed and the sentence reduced to three (3) years imprisonment.