Uganda v Alum (Criminal Session Case 14 of 1996) [1996] UGHC 33 (7 February 1996)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT SESSION HOLDEN $AT T T R \Lambda$

CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 14/96

$UGANDA$ ....................................

-versus-

FAIBI ALUM. ...................................

BEFORE: - THE HONGURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. M. OKELLO

## Sentence and the Reasons for it:-

The accused who was charged with murder continent to Section 183 of the Penal Code Act was convicted on her own plea of guilty of Manslaughter contrary to section 182 of Penal Code Act.

The narrated facts the truth of which the accused admitted revealed a grime opisode. According to the facts, the deceased was the husband to the accused. On the fateful day, the accused who suspected the deceased who was not at time at home, to be with another lover, went out to search for him. When she failed to find him with any woman or at all, the accused returned home only to find the deceased having supper. Still over taken by anger from that suspicion, the accused picked a table and with it struck the deceased on the head. She dropped the table and continued to assault the deceased with an Iron bar and a Flat iron. All attempts by her children and her neighbours to restrain the accused from further assaulting the deceased came to naught. She continued to batter the deceased until he collapsed and died shortly later. Then she washed his body and Weround it in a blanket. After that, she cleaned the floor which was littered with blood stains and sat there until the following day when she was arrested by the local Rc. They took her to Lira Police Station where she made a charge and caution statement. In the statement, the accused admitted killing the deceased. The Post Mortem examination revealed that the cause of death

$\frac{1}{2}$

was bleeding due to the injuries inflicted.

The conduct of the accused as revealed by the above facts indicated that she was clearly, bent on killing the deceased. This brought that killing to a border line with murder. I must say that the accused was very lucky that the state attorney consented to her offer of plea of guilty to a lesser cognate offence. But still, that case is almost on fours with the two cases cited by the learned Resident State Attorney. In those cases the accuseds caused the death of their respective victim in circumstances closed to murder but their offers of plea of guilty to manslauration were consented to by Counsel for the prosecution. Then the Court expressed its disploasure by schroncing them to 8 years imprisonment.

The principle of sontenee is that sentence must befit the offence and the offender. In the instant case the maximum sentence prescribed by law for the offence of which the accused is convicted is life inprisonment. The established practice of this court however is not to impose a maximum sentence on a first offender. The accused in this case is a first offender, had been in custody on remand since September, 1995 - about five months. Those will be taken into consideration infavour of the accused.

It was also argued on behalf of the accused that long devicerent sentence would be detrimental to the welfare of the accused's schooling children as that would deprive them of their surviving parent. I think the accused by the conduct she exhibited is not a fit person to be in charge of bringing up such adolescence. She is dangerous to the society and should be restrained from circulation for sometimes. She acted with extreme brutality on a mere suspicion. For the reasons given above I consider 8 years imprisonment adequate punishment for the accused in these circumstances. So I order.

> $\mathbf{L}_{\bullet} = \mathbf{I}$ G. M. OKEIO, JUDGE $7/2/96.$

> > .... $/3$ .

Sentence pronounced in open court in the presence of the Accused, Hr, Emoro for the accused on state brief, Hr. Gynbi Resident State Attorney, Lu?, Opio Edward Court Clerk,

- <sup>3</sup> -

OICEL.i. O, JUJDGC 7/2/96