Inambao v People (Appeal 20 of 1987) [1987] ZMSC 50 (11 August 1987)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) Appeal No. 20 of 1987 LISHEBO INAMBAOC Appellant v THE PEOPLE Respondent CORAM: Ngulube, D. C. J., Gardner and Sakala, JJ. S., 11th August, 1987.- Appellant in person K. C. Chanda, Senior State Advocate, for the respondent Gardner, J. S...delivered the judgment of the court. JUDGMENT The appellant was convicted of manslaughter’, the particular of the chLrge being that on the 11th of October, 1984, at Lilayi in the Lusaka district he did unlawfully kill Charles Mwangelwa Mukata. The facts of the case were that the appellant, a police officer, was sitting with his friends when his children came to call him to his house. When he went there with his gun he found the deceased struggling with his wife. The appellant gave evidence at his trial for murder to the effect that thereupon there unsued a struggle for the possession of his gun and the gun accidentally went off and killed the deceased. The learned trial judge properly rejected the defence of accident and convicted the appellant of the lesser charge of manslaughter. In sentencing the appellant the learned trial judge accepted that there had been serious provocation and then went on to say:- "I have not to loose sight of the fact that there have been many cases where police officers use firearms at people for no apparent reasons. It appears some of the police officers really enjoy firing at people without a good reason." 2/The........................ The learned trial judge then sentenced the appellant to eight years imprisonment with hard labour. The appellant Appeals against that - sentence. We have considered all the facts of this and we agree that this was a case where there was serious provocation^- Howeyer, we do not case agree that this is a case of a police officer using his gun recklessly without regird to the possible dange^'to the public. Were it such acgse we would wholeheartedly agree with the learned trial judge's comments. However, in the circumstances, the sentence has been applied on the wrong principle, and it is proper for the appellant to be sentenced only on the facts which reveal a serious provocation. The appeal against sentence is allowed and the sentence of eight years imprisonment with hard labour is set aside. In its rplace we substitute a sentence of three years imprisonment with hard labour with effect from the 16th of October, 1984. M. S. Ngulube DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE B. T. Gardner SUPREME COURT JUDGE E. L. Sakaia SUPREME COURT JUDGE