The People v Benny Essau Zulu (HP/255/2019) [2022] ZMHC 48 (17 May 2022)

\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Criminal Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: HP/255/2019 THE PEOPLE VERSES BENNY ESSAU ZULU BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE W. G. K. MUMA IN OPEN COURT THIS 17TH DAY OF MAY, 2022. For the State: Mr. S. Mainza from National Prosecution Authority For the Accused: Mr. R. M. Simeza (S. C.) from Simeza Sangwa and Associates JUDGMENT Legislation referred to: J. Section 200 of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia 2. Section 204 of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia 3 . Black s Law Dictionary J 0th Edition Cases referred to: 1. The People V Njovu (1968) Z. R. 132 2. David Zulu V. The People (19 77) Z. R. 151 (S. C.) 3. John Mwansa and Samuel Mwansa Vs The People SCZ/ APP/No. 170/ 171 /20 14 4. Machipisha Kombe V The People (2009) ZR 282 5. Simutenda V The People (1975) ZR 294 J2 f ( The accused p erson stands charged with Murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia. The particulars of the offence allege that Benny Essau Zulu on 9 th day of July, 2019 at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of th e Lusaka Province of the _ Republic of Zambia, did murder Natasha Mkandawire . I warn myself that in criminal cases the burden of proving the guilt of an accused person lies from beginning to end on the prosecution; there is no onus cast upon the accused to p rove as to his innocence. If after con s idering the evidence in this matter, there remains any doubt in my mind as to the g uilty of the accused, then the accused must be given the benefit of doubt and be acquitted forthwith. Turning to Section 200 of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia the offence of Murder is defined as; "Any person who of malice aforethought causes the death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder". Malice aforethought is defined under Section 204 of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia as: J3 "Malice aforethought is deemed to be established by evidence proving anyone or more of the following circumstances: (a) An intention to cause the death of or to do grievous harm to any person, whether such a person is actually killed or not; (b) Knowledge that the act or omission causing death will probably cause the death of or grievous harm to some person, whether such person is the person actually killed or not, although such knowledge is accompanied by indifference whether death or grievous bodily harm is caused or not, or by a wish that it may not be caused; (c) An intent to commit a felony; (d) An intention by an act or omission to facilitate the flight or escape from custody of any person who has committed or (( attempted to commit a felony". The case of THE PEOPLE V. NJOVU ( 1968) Z. R. 132 1 qualifies the above in saying: "To establish "malice aforethought" the prosecution must prove either that the accused had actual intention to kill or to cause grievous harm to the deceased or that the accused knew J4 that his actions would be likely to cause the death or grievous harm to someone". The prosecution must prove that the accused persons unlawfully, knowingly, with malice aforethought took the life of Natasha Mkandawire. I will now consider the evidence in this matter. The prosecution called ten witnesses. The first prosecution witness was Mulipa Besa a 38 year old teacher from Ngwererere who will hereinafter be referred to as PW 1. PW 1 testified that she was the mother to the deceased Natasha Mkandawi re. PW 1 recalled that on the 9th of July, 2019 she was at home in h er living room when at about 20:00 hours Natasha received a phone call. PW 1 hea rd Natasha r equest for one of her siblings to escort her outside cla iming that s h e would return soon. After a few minutes, Natasha's s ibling returned home without Natasha. PWl tried to inquire '( as to where Natasha was a nd Na tasha's sibling informed her that she would return . After 5 minutes PWl sent a text message to Natasha to find out where she was but the text did not go through. PWl waited for 30 minutes a nd later tried to phone Natasha, however the line did not go through. PW 1 started to call her r elatives in search of Natasha but to no avail. Natash a did not return home on the material night. All attempts to reach Natasha the following day proved futile. PW 1 went JS to report the matter at Ngwererere Police Station at 15:30. At the Police PWl gave a description of the clothes that Natasha was wearing on the material night being, white leggings, a black top, a bush green head sock and pl:l,rple slippers. On the 11 th of July, 2019 PW 1 received a phone call from Ngwererere Police informing her that there was a body that was picked on the 10th July, 2019. PWl went to University Teaching Hospital (UTH) with Jackson Besa. Jackson Besa and PWl 'smother identified the If body and confirmed that it was Natasha's body. PW I disclosed that Natasha had a.boyfriend, Ignatius Chikolomo who she came to knew because Natasha spoke about him every day. PWl revealed that she knew the accused person facially as he was a Ngwererere resident. Th e second prosecution witness was Jackson Besa a 44 year old Service Man from Zambia Na tional Service who will hereinafter be referred to as PW2. It was his testimony that on 11 th July, 2 019 he was called by PWl to identify Natasha Mkandawire's body at UTH mortuary. PW2 went to the mortuary and identified the body of Natash a. PW2 disclosed that the postmortem was conducted on 16 th July, 2019 . PW2 identified the body to the doctor who conducted the postmortem. There were two police officers left in the room while the postmortem was conducted. PW2 denied knowing the accused person. J6 The third prosecution witness was George Tembo a 45 year old Police Officer from Kabangwe Police Post who will hereinafter be referred to as PW3 . It was PW3 's testimony that he was in the CID section scenes of crime. PW3 recollected that on 1 Qth July, 2019 he was at Kabangwe Police Post when he received a report of suspected murder from a member of the public. A body was discovered in Panika village in Chief Mungule. Inspector Sitali received t h e call. Inspector Sitali called PW3 to accompany her to the scene of the crime. The body was found at plot No . 12869 about 2.9km from Great North Road. Immediately PW3 arrived at the scene of the crime h e took photos of the position of the body which was facing downward s. On phys ical inspection of the body, he observed a cut on the right s ide of th e foreh ead. The deceased was wearing a black top, a maroon and grey s weat s hirt a nd white leggings that were coated with blood. About 3 m eters away from the body was half a pair of purple slippers and a bush green head sock. The body was female. ( According to PW3 's assessm ent the d eceased could have been killed somewhere else and dumped at the scene as there were 110 signs of a struggle. The body was taken to UTH for identification. PW3 made a photo album of the photos he took on his canon camera that wa s the property of Zambia Police . PW3 disclosed tha t h e was the only J7 person that had access to the camera. PW3 developed the photos in the presence of Inspector Sitali. PW3 positively identified the photo album of the photos taken. PW3 identified the accused person as Zulu who was his neighbor in Ngwererere. The fourth prosecution witness was Sa bina Jato a Chief Inspector from Lusaka Police Station who will hereinafter be referred to as PW4. PW4 n a rrated that she worked under the Homicide section at Lusaka Police and investigated murder cases. PW4 recalled that on 16th July, 2019 she was assign ed to attend the postmortem of a body already at UTH mortuary. The body was of Na tash a Mka ndawire. The postmortem was conducted by th e Doctor in th e p resence of Mulenga Mulugwisha and Kennedy Mwa n sa. During the postmortem PW4 noticed a cut on the right side of the d eceased's n eck a nd a cut on the right side of the forehead . The d eceased further ha d multiple cuts on the skull. PW4 confirmed knowing ( the accused who s h e cam e to know when h e was b eing cautioned at the police. The fifth prosecution witness was Stephen Zulu Mvula a Police officer from Force Headqua rters, who will h ereina fter be referred to as PWS . PWS disclosed that he was a deputy in charge of forensics . PWS narrated that on 17 th July, 2019 h e was in receipt of a pistol serial number NY5634 a nd J8 a motor vehicle Mitsubishi Pareja license plate number ABL 8531 which was allegedly shot at. There were also two fragments of a bullet and one bullet core. PWS explained that the Pistol was a Makarov, Russian made, and 9mm caliber and had a capacity chamber of 9mm. The trigger and safety catch worked very effectively thereby preventing accidental firing. The pistol worked well though the metal jacket was deformed indicating that the bullet went through the barrel. PWS fired the pistol to compare it with th e m a rks that were pres ent at the scene of crime. PWS checked the barrel to see which direction the grooves were going. The groove marks wer e the sam e. The same type of pistol was used and four shots were fired. PWS could not d etermine the distance where the shots were fired from . PWS revealed tha t there were four grooves on the pistol. The metal jacket a lso h a d four grooves. This meant that there wa s one type of firearm that discharged tha t type of ammunition. ( In regards to the m otor vehicle there was a request t o d etermine whether the holes that were found inside the motor vehicle were gunshots. PWS examined the holes in t h e motor vehicle which bore traces of gun shots. The shots were slightly n ear the h eadrest on the driver's seat. The other s were on t h e panel of the back seat. There were also traces of the gun shot · on the ddver's seat. J9 The following day a scene reconstruction was conducted after being led by the suspect. They started at the point where the deceased person was picked up by the accused Mr. Zulu. They went to Ngwererere road. The motor vehicle was parked facing westward according to information obtained from the accused. An examination was conducted and that the bullet perforated the chair and had an entry and exit which also hit the panel that separated the two doors, the passenger's seat and the drives seat. There was also a gunshot hole that was under the cover. PW5 removed the cover where h e found the bullet core and metal jacket. PW5 checked the entry point of the bullet core and measured the diameter of both bull et h oles. Th e bullet hole that perforated the seat measured 9 .6mm a n d th e one tha t hit the panel measured 10mm. PW5 concluded tha t th e type of gun u sed could have been of three types, the 9mm Luger Pa l la bellum , a nd a series of 9mm pistols Makarov. PW5 could not de termine the type of series of the firearm. PWS took photographs of the motor vehicle and bullet holes with a digital canon camera. Th e camera is the property of the Zambia Police. He printed the photographs and 1nade a photo album of nine pictures. PW5 generated a report of his findings, which was tendered into evidence and m a rked P7 . JlO Under cross examination, PWS verified that he was only given one bullet jacket and that his report was accurate. There was only an error with the report saying there were 2 jackets when there wa s actually one. PWS explained that he wanted to determine whether the pistol was working and wanted to determine whether the holes were made by gun shots. PWS however did not determine when the gun was last fired . PWS cla~ified that he formed an opinion after laboratory tests were conducted. PW5 r,·,- ' confirmed that h e examined the marks using his eyes. The deformed bullets h a d four grooves which passed through the barrel. PWS verified that the h ole s on the car were caused by a gun shot. He -further stated that th e motor vehicle had b lood stains. PWS could not determine the type of firearm u sed but confirmed that the bullet moved from the passenger side to th e driver's side . The bullet moved at a 30 degree angle. The sixth prosecution witn ess was Rogers Kanungo a Police Inspector from Lusaka Central Police S tation that will h er einafter be r eferred to as PW6. PW6 recalled that on 13 th July, 2 019 whilst on duty his supervisor introduced him to the acc used who was facing th e charge of murder. PW6 found Inspector Shamapango a nd Inspector Sikazwe . PW6 was asked to record a s hort warn a nd caution statement a nd to establish if the accused was willing to demonstrate wh at h a d tra nspired on the material day. PW6 authorized the caution statement which was tendered into evidence and marked P8. Jll Under cross examination, PW6 denied having asked the accused if he WflS willing to participate in the process and did not tell the accused that he had the right to refuse. PW6 however did inform the accused that whatever he said could be used against him in the court of law. PW6 reemphasized that the warn and caution was a short one. PW6 refuted knowing that the · r, accused had a lawyer. PW6 revealed that he made the accused sign the warn a nd caution at the end of the same. The seventh prosecution witness was Stephen Nkowani a District Criminal investigalions officer that will h ereinafter be referred to as PW7. PW7 recalled th at on the 13 th July, 2 019 he was on duty as team leader to the inves tigation s o f a murder case of the deceased Natasha Mkandawire. PW7 conducted interviews of the accused in the presence of PW6 and Ins pector Sikazwe. PW8 was Dr. Muchelen gan ga Ada m Luchenga a state forensic pathologist. He recalled that on 16 th July, 2019 h e received an order for Postmortem examination to examine a 19 year old woma n who had been found along a roadside with a wound on h e r forehead. The body was identified by a relative and PW8 proceeded to examine the body and obtain photographs . J12 During the process of external examination PW8 removed the clothes on the body and obtained photographs of the clothing using a Canon Police Camera. PW8 thereafter collected swab which was inserted in the vagina. PW8 inspected the naked body of the deceased and noted that there was an open wound on the forehead which h e photographed. PW8 turned the body and examined the back where he observed another wound on the back of the n eck and took a photograph of the wound. The wound was consis tent wit h t h e entry of a gunshot wound. PW8 further observed that there was som e blackening or soot which was washable. PW8 took a photo of the soot. PW8 d id an interna l examina tion of the body, chest and all the organs in th e ch est a nd abdom en. He did not find any disease. The uterus did not conta in a ny fet us. PW8 examined the neck where there was a wound. The path t a ken by the bullet entered the n eck and broke the bones in the neck and enter ed the s kull passed through th e brains and fractured the skull before exiting. PW8 found a fragm ent of m eta l that was copper coloured on the foreh ead skin but h e did not recover the bullet. PW8 concluded tha t the d eath was caused by a gunshot from the findings of the wound tha t was a loose contact. PW8 explained that in Pa thology th ere is a contact wound, a near wound a nd a distant wound. The conta ct J13 has two (2) types of wounds, Hard contact where the gun makes an imprint on the skin or wound. This means that you could see the barrel of the gun imprinted on the skin. Loose contact in which to barrel of the gun is 2 to 5 centimeters away from the skin and it is away because when the gun is fired it pulls back and allows the smoke to settle on the skin. It is the smoke that PW8 ref erred to as the blackening or soot. This indicated loose contact gunshot wound. PW8 prepared the postmortem reported and stored the photogra phs on the computers at the office of the State Forensic Pathologist. Under cross examina tion PW8 explained that the bullet entered from the left h and side of the deceased to the right hand side of the deceased. PW8 explained that a ny firearm could have been used revolver, pistol or rifle. PW9, Harry Mulungisha a Police Officer from Lusaka Headquarter and the Officer in Charge of Homicide effected the arr est of the now accused. PW9 r ecalled that on 12 th July, 2019 h e reported for work and was assigned to investigate a case of murder of Na ta sha Mka nda wire aged 19 who was murd ered by unknown p ersons. PW9 was infor m ed by the DCIO that there was a person de ta ined in connection with the same. PW9 got the accused a nd took him to his office for interviews. The accused name was Essau Zulu. Jl4 Mr. Tembo the DCIO ordered that the accused's house be searched. The house was searched and a pistol was recovered from the accused's bedroom. The accused's motor vehicle was taken to the police and it was observed that there were blood stains on the passenger's seat. On 12th July, 2019, PW9 handed all these items that were in turn handed over to forensic for examination. The accused was handed to the police h eadqua rters . PW9 revealed that h e saw the bullet marks on the motor vehicle. Under cross examina tion PW9 denied having knowledge that that there was coverage of th e case in th e Newspaper on 14th July, 2019 and denied investigating th e s tories t ha t cam e out of the newspaper. PW9 additionally d enied kn owing wheth er the deceased had a boyfriend. PW9 disclosed that the accused cla imed th a t the m a n who shot the deceased could have b een a police officer a nd tha t wa s why he asked him to produce an identification ca rd. PW9 s ta ted tha t when he interviewed the accused he did not h ave legal representa tion present. Bronson Saka la form er Officer in Cha rge of Ngw er erer e Police Post r ecalled t hat on 8 th J uly, 201 9 h e was in ch a rge of a ll a dministra tive issues a t the J15 station. During the day shift he had one officer on duty in addition to himself. The officer was Constable Akabondo . There was a n occurrence book that showed their movements and operations. The occurrence book had entries which had the taking over and the handover notes. On 7 th July, 2019 at the Inquires office Sergeant Muntha li handed over the office to Sergeant Chikoloma. The items taken over was an AK47 rifle with 7 rounds of ammunition and one riot gun with 4 shells. On 8 th July, 2019 Sergeant Chikoloma was with Constable Muyunda in the night shift. In the morning Consta ble Muyunda handed over to Constable Akabondo. Th e property handed over to Co nsta ble Akabondo was 1AK4 7 rifle with 7 round s of ammun iti on as well as 1 riot gun with 4 shells. At 17 .40 hours Constable Akabondo h anded over to Constable Kashimba 1 AK4 7 rifle with 7 rounds of a mmunition a nd a riot gun with 4 shells. On 9th July, 2019 Constable Kash im ba who was on duty a t 07 .50 hours handed over to Constable Akabondo one AK4 7 with 7 rounds of a mmunition and one riot gun with 4 shells and other items. These items were handed over to Constable Kashimba at 18.00 hours. At 07.45 hours Constable Kashimba h and ed over one AK47 with 7 rounds of amn1unition and one riot gun with 4 shells to Con stable Akabondo. Between the 7 th J uly, 20 19 and 10th July, 2019 n o ammunition was expended. Jl.6 Under cross examination PW 1 O clarified that there were records of the firearms at the station (The Armory Register Book). PW 10 further clarified that the occurrence book does not keep a record of firearms at the station. PWlO disclosed that the full names of Sergeant Chikoloma was Cornelius Chikolama. This marked the closure of the prosecution case. When pu t on defen ce, Counsel for the accused indicated to the Court that lhe acc used would rem a in silent and say nothing at all and that he would call no wi tn esses a l a ll. The accu sed is perfectly entitled to do so. I therefore have to make a determination based upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and this does not absolve m e from testing the evidence to satisfy myself as to its truth or falsity nor does it affect the onus placed upon the prosecution to satisfy me beyond all reasonable doubt as the guilty of the accused person. I did receive the submissions from both Counsel and I am indebted to them for their spirited argu1nents and the plethora of authorities their in. I have also carefully taken a full note of their arguments and the law. J17 I now wish to state my findings of fact. I hasten to say that there is no direct evidence adduced against the accused. The facts surrounding the case anchors solely on circumstantial evidence. If Circumstantial evidence has been defined 1n Blacks Law Dictionary 10th Edition as; Evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation". This definition has been fortified in the case of DAVID ZULU V. THE PEOPLE (1977) Z. R. 151 (S. C.)2 wherein the Supreme Court held interalia; It is therefore incumbent on the trial judge that he should guard against drawing wrong inferences from the circumstantial evidence at his disposal before he can feel safe to convict. The Judge in our view must, in order to feel safe to convict, be satisfied that the circumstantial evidence has J18 taken the case out of a realm of conjecture so that it attains such a degree of cogency which can only permit an inference of guilt". It is therefore prudent that in making my findings of fact I must mirror myself against this background. I should further severely caution myself against the danger of permitting or allowing the confession statements to cloud my mind a s the same were expunged from record in my Ruling following the trial within trial. Noneth eless in this case the evidence leading to the discovery of the body of the deceased exclusively builds up from the disclosure made by the accused pe rson himself which subsequently resulted in the accused leading the po lice: to th e scene where the body was found. This evidence filtered thro ugh in th e m a in stream by the testimony of PW 5 Stephen Zulu a forensi c Ballistic expert. He informed the Court that he extended a thought of doing scen e reconstruction. That h e made a request for the presence of the suspect because no one was at the scene at the time. Further that the subjective knowledge was based on the same suspect. J19 He further informed the court that the suspect led them to the scene. They started at the point where the deceased was picked by the suspect Mr . Zulu. Now the accused. This piece of evidence reflects in P7 which is a report consolidated by PW5. This piece of evidence was not challenged in anyway a t all. I must underscore this position that without the accused having led the police to the scene, no one else could have known where the body of deceased was disposed of at that time. I want to a rise and bring forth the evidence of leading the police to the scene by the now acc used as it forms tbe crux of this matter. I am fortified by the holding in the case of; JOHN MWANSA AND SAMUEL MWANSA VS THE PEOPLE SCZ/APP/No. 170/171/20143 Wherein at page 25 of the Judgm cnt, the Suprem e Court guided as follows; "It is a well~established principle that where the leading of the police to the scene or elsewhere by an accused, whether voluntarily or not, has ,·esulted in the discovery of real evidence, or the discovery of anything else not already known to the police, the evidence of leading is always admissible." J20 There is further evidence on record led by PW7 and PW9 that it was the accused who led them to the scene where the body of Natasha was found. I must also mention that no one knew who had picked the deceased from her residence. The evidence of PW 1 the mother of the deceased narrated that on the 9 th July, 2019 at about 2 0:00 hours the deceased received a call from unknown p erson and asked h er siblings to escort her outside. The siblings came back on their own a nd that was the last day Natasha was seen. The mother reported to Ngwerere Police over the missing of her daughter Natash a from home. On th e 1 1 t h ,July s he received a call from Ngwerere Police Station that a body matching the description s h e h a d given the police had been found. f have earlie r started herein lha t h a d the accused not h ave led the police to the sce ne, th e body of th e deceased could not h ave b een found at that time. How then could the accused have known where the body of Natasha was disposed of? The a n swer inva riably leads me to a firm position that it was the accused who picked Natasha from the home on that fateful day. J21 There is evidence on record led by PW8 a State Forensic Pathologist to the effect that the cause of d eath of the deceas ed was as a result of gunshot wounds to the n eck and h ead. That there were no other competing causes of death, natura l or violent before she sustained the gun shot. This position is confirmed by the evidence led by PW3 , Tembo George who is scen es of crime police officer. According to his assessment, the deceased ~ could h ave been killed elsewhere and just dumped at the scene. He observed thal th ere were n o signs of any struggle at the scene. There is f urlhcr ev id e nce led by PW9 that when they searched the accused house, a Pistol seria l number NY 5634 was r etrieved from the accused bedroom and tha t hi s motor vehicle was a lso taken to the police station. That the motor veh icle: had blood s ta ins on the passenger seat in front and that there were bullet marks on the Motor vehicle. The evidence of PW5 a forensic Ballistic Expert a lluded to the fact that the motor vehicle which was retrieved from the accu sed's house had a hole which was a trace of a gunshot. That the impact was massive h ence m a king th e metal copper jacket peel off and the bullet core extensively deformed, and that is to say, the shot was discharged at short range. J22 This evidence corroborates the evidence of the pathologist. In his summary and opinion, he indicated that the firearm was a rifled weapon (revolver, pistol or rifle) That the pathological range of fire was a loose contact as evidenced by the soot that was washable. That in loose contact wounds, the muzzle is against the skin, but for a shot time following discharge of the weapon, a gap opens up between the muzzle and skin so that a ring of soot is deposited around the entrance hole. Further that the direction of fire was from downwards, upwards from left to right. That the decedent may have survived only a few seconds and was incapable of voluntary action. Th al t h e mechanism of death was a physical disruption of the brain and bra in stem stru cture. All th ese c irc um s ta nces put together leaves me in a very difficult position lo sepa ra te the bullet wounds found on the body of the deceased from the (' bullet holes found on the motor vehicle belonging to the accused which had blood stains on the seat. This same motor vehicle was retrieved from the house of the accused upon search. This could have occurred at the same time indicating that the deceased _was shot at when she was in the motor vehicle belonging to the accused. Therefore, I do not doubt in any way that the accused led the police to the scen e where the body was found. J23 ' In the case of MACHIPISHA KOMBE V THE PEOPLE (2009) ZR 2824 , the court h eld ; 'Odd coincidence constitute evidence of something more. They represent an additional piece of evidence of which the court is entitled to take into consideration.' I have a lready drawn an irrevocable position from the circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that the accused was with the deceased at the time of h er d eath. Thus, the accused was the last person to have been with the d eceased. Th e d eceased died from bulle t wounds. There were also bullet holes found on the motor vehicle of the accused. The range of fire was loose contact (muzzle against the s kin). This is indicative that the accused h as peculiar information of wh at transpfred on that fateful day. The accused elected to rem a in s ilent a nd called no witnesses a t a ll. He is rightly entitled to do s o and equally State Counsel Simeza representing th e accused properly cited the case of SIMUTENDA V THE PEOPLE ( 1975) ZR 2945 wherein it was held: J24 'The only person who could have given the court direct evidence as to his state of mind at the critical time chose not to give evidence. There is no obligation on an accused person to give evidence, nor must we be taken to suggest that in the present case there was any onus on the appellant; but where an accused person does not give evidence the court will not speculate as to the possible explanations for the event in question; the court's duty is to draw the proper inference from the evidence it has before it.' In this 1na tter a t ha nd the evidence highlighted is so strong against the accused that it leaves n o room for speculation. If in a ny event the accused was simply attacked when he was with the deceased , why did h e n eglect to report to police immediately the incident occurred? All this d emonstra tes a guilty mind on the part of the accused. The cocktail of events I h ave adumbrated herein leads me to draw only one inference and that is to say tha t it was the accused who shot the deceased a nd went to dump the body to the place where h e subsequ ently led the police. J25 Having said so I am therefore satisfied that the prosecution has proved their case against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt at all and I find the accused guilty of murder and I convict him accordingly. DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 17th DAY OF MAY 2022. ························································· HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. W. G. K. MUMA HIGH COURT JUDGE