Santa Aciro v Uganda (Criminal Revision Order No. 34/91) [1991] UGHC 83 (2 April 1991)

Full Case Text

#### TSE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

## IN TSE 1IGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

### CRE. JNAL REVISION ORDER NO, 34/91

Ck -

SANTA ACIRO ACCUSED

# VERSUS

UGANDA PROSECUTOR

BEFORE: The Honf Mr, Justice G,M, Qkello;

#### RE&ISICN ORDER:

The Accused in this case was charged with and convicted on her own plea of guilty of Doing Grievous Bodily Harm contrary to section 212 of the Penal Code Act\* She was subsequently sentenced to'a fine of 400/= or to 12 months imprisonment in default of payment of the fine\* x

The plea on which the accused was bonvicted is recorded as under \*

n I admit the charge11\* -

The Chief Magistrate of Gulu forwarded the file to this court under 340(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for a possible-revision order on the ground that the above plea is equivocal and that the narrated facts which • the accused admitted the truth thereof do not disclose the offence charged. He was also of the view that the default sentence of 12 months imprisonment for a fine of Shs\*4OO/= is illegal as it contravenes section 192(d) 'of the MCA170 as amended by Act 4 of J98\$.« 0 . • \* ' . ' .

It is trite law that for a conviction to be properly based on a plea of guilty, the plea must admit all the essential ingredients of the alleged offence and the narrated facts which must be put to the accused must disclose the commission of the-offence alleged\* . • v \*•

(gee Adan v Republic (19731! Ea 445)\* ',i:- •'\* '

, In the instant case, the above plea as recorded is vague\* But- such a -\*r •' defect can be cured if the narrated facts' disclose the commission of theoffence alleged.

.................. /2

The narrated facts in this case show that the accused bit the complainant! s finger and injured it. The Medical Report which was received revealed that the injury which was on the left thumb amounted to a deformity and contracture left thumb joint affecting glass holding position.

Grievous harm is a technical terminology. It is defined in section 4 of the Penal Code Act to mean

"any harm which amounts to main or dangerous harm or seriously or permanently injures health or which is likely so to injure health or which extends to permanent disfigurement or to any permanent or serious injury to external or internal organ, membrane or sense."

When the file was sent to the DPP for his view, Maureen Owori, a State Attorney writing for the DPP in her undated letter ref. $6/4/2$ was of the view that the plea in this case is equivocal and that the narraxed facts and the Medical Report do not support the charge.

With all due respect to the Jearned State Attorney and the Chief Magistrate, I do not share their view that the narrated facts in this case do not disclose the commission of the offence alleged. The injury which amounts to a deformity to the left thumb joint and which affects its glass holding position in my view technically amounts to a grievous harm because it amounts to a permanent disfigurement within the meaning in section 4 of the Penal Code Act. I am of the view that the trial Magistrate was therefore right to convict the accused as such. The narrated facts cured the defect in the plea.

The learned state Attorney was also of the view that the default sentence of 12 months imprisonment for a fine of Shs. $400/$ = is illegal.

I fully agree with the learned state Attorney and the Chief Magistrate on this. Section 192(d) of the MCA'70 as amended by Act 4 of 1985 places the maximum a default sentence for a fine of not exceeding Shs. 2000/= to only 7 days imprisonmnet. A default sentence of 12 months imprisonment for a fine of Shs. $400/$ = is clearly illegal.

The accused was committed to prison for twelve months. He must have now served the illegal sentence. The illegal sentence is set aside and in its place it is substituted a default sentence of 7 days imprisonment.

$\mathbf{2}$

*1*

Accused is ordered to be released forthwith.

G.4^ G. M. Okello,

JUDGE 2/4/1991.