Republic v Hassan Jumanne 1983 TLR 432 (HC)

REPUBLIC v HASSAN JUMANNE 1983 TLR 432 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Dodoma

Judge Lugakingira J

July 5, 1983

CRIMINAL REVISION 2 OF 1983 D

Flynote

Evidence - Confession -Involuntary confession made to a Police Officer under threat of being beaten this being only evidence - Whether trial court acted properly to base a conviction on it.

Evidence - Admission - Admissibility of evidence under s. 34 B of Evidence Act - Whether signature of a deponent alone is sufficient for a written statement of a witness who is abroad to be put in evidence.

-Headnote

This revision arose from trial and subsequent conviction of the accused of housebreaking and stealing by the District Court of Singida. The only evidence against the accused upon which the trial court based its conviction was a confession made by the accused to a police sergeant during interrogation. The accused alleged that he was beaten severely and was threatened with further beating during interrogation unless he surrendered the stolen money. P.W.2 gave evidence supporting this allegation.

The trial court also admitted under s. 34B(2)(b) of the Evidence Act a written statement signed by its author who was said to be in Uganda; the only factor guiding the admission of the said statement being the signature purporting to have been made by the author of the written statement.

Held: 

(i) A confession made involuntarily to a police officer cannot alone be the basis of a conviction;

(ii) the provisions of s. 34(B)2 of the Evidence Act are cumulative, therefore to admit a statement in evidence under s. 34 (B) (2) (b) all the conditions set forth from paragraphs (a) to (f) must be satisfied;

(iii) in this case only the first two provisions, that is (a) and (b) were satisfied hence the statement was inadmissible.

Case Information

Conviction quashed B

No cases referred to.

[zJDz]Judgment

Lugakingira, J.: I admitted this case to revision upon realising that the accused's Conviction was not based on legal evidence. The accused was convicted of housebreaking and stealing, the evidence against him being a confession he made to police sergeants during interrogation as well as the police statement of one of the sergeants which was admitted at the trial.

The accused said he was beaten hard during the interrogation. This was earlier deposed to by PW. 2 who said "The policeman told the accused that if he does not give the money he will be beaten. There and then the accused entered in his room and came out with Shs. 780/=". It is evident, therefore, that the confession was involuntary and could not be acted upon. On the other hand, the trial magistrate purported to admit the statement of a sergeant who was said to be in Uganda under s. 34B (2)(b) of the Evidence Act. He thought that the signature of the deponent was sufficient for the statement to be put in evidence. With respect, he was wrong in taking that view.

The provisions of s. 34 (B) (2) are cumulative and all the paragraphs (a) to (f) have to be satisfied. Hence, to admit the statement, it must be reasonably impracticable to call the deponent; the statement must have been signed by him; it must contain a declaration on liability for perjury; a copy must have been previously served on the accused; the accused must have failed to serve a notice of objection within ten days; and, where the deponent cannot read, it must be accompanied by a declaration of the person who read it to the effect that it was so read. In this case the first two requirements only were satisfied. The statement was then inadmissible.

It is thus clear that the accused's convictions had no legal basis, there being no other evidence to connect him with the offence. I therefore quash the convictions and set aside the sentences and order the accused's release from custody.

Conviction quashed.

1983 TLR p434

A