Uganda v Bweyale and Another (Criminal Session Case 43 of 89) [1990] UGHC 25 (10 August 1990)

Full Case Text

200 salest 2

$\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{M}$ $\overline{$

$\sim$ $\sim$ $\sim$ $\sim$

$\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{Z}} \longrightarrow \mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{Z}} \longrightarrow \mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{Z}} \longrightarrow \mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{Z}}$

$\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal{A} \mathcal$

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGAUDA HOLDEN AT FORT PORTAL $\alpha_{\mathcal{A}} = \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{\mathcal{A}} \alpha_{$ CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 43/89

## $\mathbb{R}$ . UGANDA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

**VERSUS**

the state of the provide A1: LEO BWEYALE <pre>0 :::::::::::::::ACCUSED A2: NYANSIO RUHUEZA 0

$J, U, D, G, M, E, N, T$

the mark a way BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. MUKANZA

The two accused persons Lee Bweyale Accused No. 1 (A1) and Nyansio Ruhweza (Accused No. 2) and others still at large stand indicted of three offences namely. $\mathbb{E} \left\{ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb{E} \left[ \mathbb$

On count I the accused persons were indicted of murder contrary $he$ $ll$ to section 183 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the indistment indi that the accused persons and others still at large on or about the 3rd day of February 1984 at Bugoye Wading Contro in Kassoe District $\mathcal{C} = \mathcal{C} \cup \mathcal{C} \cup \mathcal{C} \cup \mathcal{C}$ murdered one Zabuloni Kalwana. $\mathcal{A} = \{1, \ldots, 1\}$

On counts II and III the a same accused persons & others etill at large were indicted of Robbery contrary to sections 272 and 273 (2) of the renal Code. The varticulars being that on the same date and place as in count I they robbed one Lazarro and Bwambale'# properties from his shop worth 282,000/= plus a Raleigh Bicycle frame No. 2531214 And at the same time and place as in counts II and I robbed Patrick Wamara of his bicycle frame No. 162177 and Shs. 25,000/=. The particulars further went on to allege that immediately after the said robberies the accused persons used a deadly weapon to wit a gun on the said Lazaro Bwambale and $\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{S})$ Patrick Wamara respectively. When arraigned the accused persons denied all the charges in the indictment. $\cdots \cdots \cdots$

The prosecution called the evidence of about four witnesses namely PM2, PW3, FM4 and PW5. The evidence of PW1 Dr. Ganafa was admitted at the preliminary hearing under S. 64 of the Trial on Indictment decree Decree 26 of 1971.

The prosecution's case was that on 3rd February 1984 Bugoye Trading centre was invaded by a gang of men armed with guns at around 9.00 p.m. According to PN5 the invaders were about five in number. PW5 who was returning home after collecting his girlfriend from the trading centre. They arrested PV5 together with his girl friend and tied them using a rubber band which they got from PW5's bicycle. TW5 and his girl friend were returned to the trading centre. He was made to lie down facing the ground and his girlfriend was taken from him and was brought back afterwards. He continued that the assailants spread in all directions of the trading centre and they started fixing several bullets in the air while raiding the shops. One of the assailants guarded him. They arrested a number of people in the trading centre who were brought where he was being guarded.

Also properties stolen from the shops packed in sacks were also taken there. P%5 his girlfriend and other captives were led $\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{A}}(x) = \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{A}}(x) \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{A}}(x) = \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{A}}(x)$ into an abandoned house in the centre and left there. The assailants the country with a probably develop $\sqrt{11}$ tied some of their loot on to his bicycle frame No. 162177 which $\mathbb{L}^{\mathbb{R}} \oplus \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{R}} \oplus \mathbb{R} \oplus \mathbb{R} \oplus \mathbb{R} \oplus \mathbb{R} \oplus \mathbb{R} \oplus \mathbb{R}$ they made away with and it was at the time when they finally fired. with matter of once in the air. At a later date PW5 went to Kasese police station and identified his bicycle which was robbed from him in the night of 3rd February 1984. He never recognised any of the robbers but when he returned to the Trading centre together with others and after the assailants had left they found that Kezironi Karwani was shot dead infront of this shop, the transmission of the communication of the

$\mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{N}}$

maters.

a that is a man of the plant of a season of FW3 had a shop in the trading centre. His shop was raided on $\mathcal{L}^{\text{max}}$ the date in question when thugs shot several bullets. He escaped $-1$ from the shop and went into hiding. Then the assailants left he in the 2 dia many and $\sigma_{\mathcal{M}} \in \mathcal{M}$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$ $\cdot$ returned to the Trading centre where he found that a number of items in his shop including his bicycle frame No. 253124 ex 1 had been stolen and one Karwani Kezironi a shop keeper and a neighbour had been a shot dead infront of his (the deceased's shop). The body had a bullet wound on the chest, like P05 he never recognised any of the robbers. However FVI2 who Was Sofue $-K$

$\cdots \rightarrow \cdots$

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /3

$\longrightarrow \quad \ \ \, 2\, \ldots \quad \ \, 4\, \ldots$

$\sim$ $\sim$

for duty at Kasese on $4/2/84$ in the morning came across the body of the deceased which was lying at the centre. He never witnessed the raid.

$\frac{1}{2}$

According to PN3 and PN5 robbers returned on 23/2/84 for the second time and raided PWH's shop which was one and holf kilometres from the trading centre at Rwankingi village. According to PW4 he was at home on $23/2/84$ at 11.30 p.m. when robbers attacked him and a number of his\_ properties in the shop were stolen. He escaped from the house and went in hiding. Then in conjunction with the police men and army personel to whom FW4 had reported / incident they pursued the robbers but failed to intercept them. rW4 returned home and on the way he found A2 having been arrested by the villagers. A2 was taken to the police for questioning. Similaraly PW5 was arrested by the police suspected to have participated in the second robbery. After interrogation PW5 was released.

According to FW4 when A2 was interrogated by the police in his presence A2 revealed to them that the leader of their gang was A1 and was at a cetain market called Rwimi and that if they hurried 🥙 and went there they would get him. PN4 accompanied by the police rashed there and found A1 in the market as directed by A2. A1 was 🦸 arrested and brought to the police station Kasese after being 💨 💀 🍀 identified by PW4 . At the police station A1 revealed to the police and PN4 who was around where he A1 had kept some of his loots. In the company of the police and Ph4 A1 led them to his home in Rwimi. A1 showed them a ditch just 10 metres from his house where they found 2 bicycles covered with banana leaves. The bicycles were retrieved and taken to Kasese Police station where PM3 identified his bicycle frame No. 253/214 Exp 1 as one of the roverties stolen from his shop in the night of $3/2/84$ . Similarly PW5 identified the second bycycle PW5 identfied the second bicycle frame No. 16217 as the bicycle rebbed from him in the same night when he fell among the robbers.

In his testimony -A2 as Dl.'l testified that he was a resident of Bugoye village and on 3/2/84 a inn whs killed during the robbers curried out at Bugoye trading centre. he also conceded that there was a second robbery at Rv/ankingi village a few kilometres from Bugoye trading centre and the victim was'1^/4. His home was one and half kilimetres from the trading centre. He was arrested by an army **. I** soldier called Milton Bwambale., who was together with PvJ4' and was taken to kasese army barracks, where he was thoroughly beaten and torture,d At one time he was taken -to . Muhoti prison and there he was also tortured. He met A1 there and finally they were taken to court and charged accordingly. He.denied the allegation and asserted that when his house was searched, none of PH4's properties were found there\*

A1 denied the charge. He testified that on 26/2/84 he was fou4£ in his home- arid was arrested by ©oldi-ore who were together with PW4 and otharmen in civilian clothes. He was arreste. because he.was A ' a supporter of the Ui-M and was suspected of recruiting gvorillas and .sending them in the bush to join the leader of the UPM then .. . ... •• . £ called Museveni who was waging' a guerilla war against the Government of that time./. The . rest ' of his evidence regarding the manner in which z \* he and A2 were taken various prisons and tortured by the 'soldiers was similar to that of"A2.

As I directed the assessors the burden of proof in criminal lies -i • cases / with the prosecution to prove its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt except in a few exceptions-, this not being one of them. An accused has no burden to prove his innocence. Woolmington V DPP 1935 AC '62. ::.• 1' .

In the present case there was no eye witness.to tile incident. The evidence adduced.'by the prosecution witness, was purely circumstantial evidence.

According to the testimonies of Pi.r3 and PL'5 it has been established that the gang of men who raided the trading centre murdered one Zabuloni Karwani and at the same time carried out the

robberies. I say that they murdered the deceased because according to FU2, FW3 and FW5 after the robbers had left the deceased was found with a bullet wound on the chest which was a vulnerable part of the deceased body and a lethal weapon a gun was used in the circumstances. Though there was no postmortem report as to the cause of death I am statisfied that there was sufficient evidence to show that the died deceased /. as a result of a bullet wound. Whoever therefore shot the deceased had the requisite malice aforethought as stipulated under section 186 of the Fenal Code Act. Also See Tubere s/o Ochan VR 1945 2 $AECA$ P 63.

Similarly th: offence of robbery was established because PH3 and PW5 had their bicycles stolen inthat fateful night and immediately before or after the said robberies there was a threat to use a deadly weapon against both of them. FM3 testified that immediately the robbers invaded the trading centre. His shop was attacked followed by XXXX several shots. He escaped. Also when the assailants were leaving the trading centre with 1W5's bicycle one of the gang shot once in the air. A gun is a deadly weapon because it is adapted for shooting and when used for offensive purposes was likely to cause death. S. 273 (2) of the PCA.

From what has been explained above It has been proved that murder was committed in the course of robbery therefore all those who participated were all equally responsible. Their common intention having been proved when it was shown that the murder was committed in the prosecution of a common unlawful purpose and was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that purpose. Each member of gang was therefore guilt of murder. See James Semwogerere and another vs Uganda 1979 HCB. Page 71, Andrea Obongo VR 1962 DA 542.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /6

$\mathsf{S}$

As I stated earlier the evidence adduced was purely circumstantial. According to P'w4 when A2 was interrogated at the police station by a policeman and in the presence of pl/4, A2 revealed to them that the leader of their gang was A1 and directed them where he was at that time and as a result of .that, information pv/4 and the police and probably the army personnel went and.arrested A1 and brought him to the police station, 'Then A2 was brought from the cell he A2 addressed A3 "I have already revealed everything you better go and give them their properties." On that information PW4 in company of a2 proceeded to h1's home where they retrieved the two bicycles one was exhibited.in court as Exp 1 and the two bicycles were identified by PW3 and PV.«5 being the properties robbed from them in that fateful night.

In their testimonies the accused informed the court that they were tortured and beaten up at various army depo±s» and were'finally deposited at the-police station. The admitted evidence of the doctor who examined the accused fully corroborated their stories in that when he examined them he found them with injuries on their bodies

indicative of the fact that the information extracted from the accused persons which led to the ' ' recoveries of of the 2 bicycles was obtained through torture and therefore was not voluntary. However information received from a person accused of any offence leading to the discovery of fact is admissible whether such information amounts to a confession or not. 3. 29a of the evidence Amendment Decree . Decree 25 of 1971»

In the instant case it was as a result of that information by A2 that led to the recovery of the 2 bicycles found in possession of A1 and the subsquent arrest of the latter. A1 denials that- nothing was found on him were thus lies since I was of the view that PV/4 was a truthful witness. In the same breath whether A2 was tortured an-.:- as a result confessed and gave information leading to the discovery of the 2 bicycles that piece of evidence is also admissible.

ossession of From what has been explained above A1 was found in possession of stolen goods. It must be recalled that the incident took place on $3/2/84$ and A1 was found with the bicycles on $24/2/84$ that was three weeks after the incident.

The question to be resolved here is whether the possession of the accused persons of some of the stolen properties three weeks after the incident was sufficient to justify a finding that the accused stole the properties and were accordingly members of the raiding party. Having resolved that the next question would be whether the period of three weeks between the raid and finding of the stolen bicycle in possession of the accused person was so recent as to invoke the doctrine of recent possession in the absence of a credible explanation from the accused person.

It is trite law that a court may presume that a man in possession of stolen property after the theft is either a thief or has received the property knowing the same to have been stolen unless he can account for his possession and this is merely an $a_{\mu}$ lication of the rule relating to circumstantial evidence that the inculpatory, facts must be incompatible of explanation upon any other hypothesis than that of guilt. See Kantilal Jirraj and another VR 1961 EA P. 6 See also Directt of Public Prosecutions vs Neiser 1958 3AER F. 662.

In the instant case I find that the accused persons did not give an account how these propertis came to be in their possession. I am saying that both accused verson were $\frac{\text{in}}{\text{postession}}$ of the stolen property because on information given by A2 led to the recovery of the properties from A1's home. The two had the requisite common intention as stipulated in Section 22 of the Fenal Code therefore they were equilly to blame for the possession of / these stolen properties.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . / 8

Be th it as it may th-/ properties were found in possession of the accused persons 21 days after the incident and the latter failed to account for their possession. Before this court could find whether the property found in possession of the accused persons were recently stolen or not the court has to take into account factors such as the nature of the property stolen, whether it be of a kind that readily passes from one hand to one hand and the trade or occupation to which the accused persons belongs can all be taken . into account. Uganda vs Bempala hukasa 1975 hCB P. 211.

In the instant case the accused persons were found in possession of bicycles. These are articles of some value very easily identifiable and which a thief could experiance some difficulties in disposing of the same by sale but there was the question of the interval from the date of the inci\*ent and the date when the bicycles were found in their possession

To justify an inference tnat a person has committed another offence from the fact that he has stolen certain articles the theft must be proved beyon.d reasonable doubt, and if a finding that he stole the articles depends on the- presumption arising from the recent possession of.the stolen articles that inference would not be justified unless the possibility that they were mere receivers of the stolen property was excluded Anderea Obongo . . bupra quoted with approved in Semwogerere and another vs Uganda Supra.

In the instant case the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence to prove that the accused persons committed the offences as per the indictment because the accused were found in possession of the recently stolen properties (the bicycles) but the possibility that they were mere receivers of the stolen properties h«s not been excluded by the prosecution. I find that the accused persons were not found in possession of recently stolen bicycles and as such they were not members of the gang which murdered Zabuloni Karwani and at the same time robbed

*&*

Pa'3 and PW5 of the 2 bicycles as per the indictment. On the contrary I find that the accused persons were mere receivers of the stolen property with guilt knowledge that they were stolen properties because the bicycles were found hidden in the ditch covered with banana fibres. That was not the normal way of keeping custody of the bicycles. The bicycles should have been kept in the house. The accused failed to account for the possession of the said bicycles.

as I have stated above that the pros-ecution solely relied <in the doctrine of recen-t possession. I am of the opinion that in casea-of this nature where even some of the stolen properties are found in-' possession of the accused persons as it was in the instant case\* It is -the -ocn-si-dered opinion, of the court s that the accused could have been indicted on two counts with the alternative counV.of receiving stolen property.

However I have looked at Section 90 of the- Trial laii-cimant De4>ree Decree 26 o-f T971 -which states

"When a person is indicted for any o-f ths fence v ' mentioned in sections l4jj B, 1^6, 148, 149, or 151 °f th. Magistrates Courts Act 7970. Those sections of that Act shall be construed aa reference to a court included reference to the High Court."

The relevant section of the Magistrates Courts Act is section 150(a) which states namely -

> "When a person is charged with stealing anything, It is proved that he received or retained the thing knowing or having reason to believe the same to haVe been stolen he may be convicted of the offence of receiving or retaining the thing as the case may bo although he^was not charged with it."

> > ..................../'10

*9*

The accused persons were indicted among others of Robbery\* contrary to section 272 and 275 (2) of the Penal Code. Jobbery entails stealing accompanied by some form of violence Qponya vs Uganda 19&7 EA 752 at p. 757 and where a deadly weapon is used to the victim .or where there is a threat to use the same it becames Aggravated robbery, Whereas theft is governed by section 252 of the renal Code and violence •VZZW5 not an element of the offence. As could be deduced from that explanation above Robbery and stealing are two different offences but where a person was indicted of Robbery he could be indictud/charged 'in the alternative count with receiving stolen property just it is the case'with Stealing.

I am of the opinion that accused not' found guilty of Rob'bery ^^CoulxJ be ..bdnvi-cted of receiving stolen property though. ox-igiaally

indioted with it. • . A'

/Trom whpt has bgen'explained above I- find that the jjroseeution ... . has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.' . **t** I therefore endorse the unanimous opinion of tho gentl-emeji the accused be acquitted on all the three counts. I find the accused .. , persons not guilty of the offences of murder and robbery contrary to sections 183 and 272, 273 (2) of the \* enal Code respectively and I acquit them on all the three counts. I do however find that the accused received stolen properties contrary to section 298 (1) of the

Penal Code and I convict them of-that charge.

( I. MUKAWZA )/ \ J U D G E K----- ' 10/8/90

10/8/90: Both Accused•before court.

Mr. Berije RSA present.

Mr. Nyakabwa for the accused persons present.

........ /11

Assessors: Mr. Isingoma & Mr. Mugenyi. the second contract with the state at all

the state of the state

$\sim$ $\sim$

Court: Judgement is read in the open court and signed.

$\forall \mathcal{X} \in \mathcal{X} \quad \exists \mathcal{X} \quad \forall \mathcal{X} \quad \forall \mathcal{X} \quad \forall$

$\label{eq:1} \text{and} \quad \text{and} \quad \text{and} \quad \text{and} \quad \text{and} \quad \text{and} \quad \text{and} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{or} \quad \text{$

$Sgd:$

typic

$\cdot \cdot \cdot C$

I. A JULI (I. MUKANZA)

$t \ge 2$

$\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{2}) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}(-\frac{1}{2}) \mathcal{O}(-\frac{1}{2})$

cal hadoo doy

$i$

$\frac{10}{10}$ in an all administration in a factor of the contract and Mr. Bireije: The convicted person stand charged with Receiving Stolen property contrary to section 298 (1) of the P. C. A. Stolen $J \subseteq Y \subseteq X$ This offence is a felony hence a serious offence. It carries that we $\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{H} \cup \mathcal{H} \cup \mathcal{H}$ a maximum sentence of $1^4$ years imprisonment. I do not have a record of previous convictions of the accused persons. However an example of has to be made so that property is protected from people who are at receivestelen properties and do not report the same. Theft is an vert $\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C}}\mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{C$ is. offence which /on the increase in this country and in which the victim have not recovered the properties. Unless people who recovered the properties report such properties and the people from whom they $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ receive these properties it will be very difficult for this country $\cdots \rightarrow \mathbf{X}_{k-1} \cup \mathbf{X}_{k}$ to combat theft. I submit that a daterrent sentence be imposed on the convicted persons. $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}$

Mr. Nyakabwa:- The lack of any previous record on the part of $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ accused person must be construed by the court that the accused persons the and a most of first are / offenders. Their respective age is on record. A1 is 51 years of age. He is a man of good previous service. A former soldier and a former county chief. He was a man interested in the public affairs $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{M}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{M}} \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{M}}$ of this country at least in the previous Government. He has a family. He has been in prison since 26th February 1984. The two accu ed were arrested in February 1984 except for a shot time were released on bail. They were on remand for about 5 years in total detention. As it has been pointed. The maximum 14 years. Also to consider the fact that accused were severely beaten this in respect of A1

The second accused (A2) is aged 24 years. He has a family and has equally suffered long prison and he too was severely beaten.

$\mathcal{L}^{(1)}(S) = \mathcal{L}^{(1)} \oplus \mathcal{L}^{(2)} \oplus \mathcal{L}^{(3)} \oplus \mathcal{L}^{(4)} \oplus \mathcal{L}^{(4)}$ The maximum sentence is 14 years. They have had a long detention. The accused have been on remand for a long and they have learnt alot. The services are meant to teach and correct a person. The whole world is not indicted in this court. They have nothing to learn for many severe punishment neted over these people. I am of the opinion these people have learnt a lot. So I pray that you consider a reasonable sentence to be imposed on them. The period spent on remand is enough. There is no use of imposing a deterrent punishment. A2 has a lot condition whereas A1 has addition to the standard the entire to exclude a specific syphatic case. I therefore invite you to be lenient to the $421 - 1$ accused persons. I submit that they have suffered sufficiently. $\label{eq:1.1} \mathcal{F}^{\text{2D-2D}}(x) = \mathcal{F}^{\text{2D}}(x) = \mathcal{F}^{\text{2D}}(x) = \mathcal{F}^{\text{2D}}(x) = \mathcal{F}^{\text{2D}}(x) = \mathcal{F}^{\text{2D}}(x)$

$\sim$

$12$

that was not a Court: The two accused persons have been in detention for almost $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{M}} \mathcal{M} \mathcal{M} \mathcal{M} \mathcal{M} \mathcal{M} \mathcal{M}$ 5 years. They are first offenders. Each had got a family and they this wife was any many of have ill health. I am of the view that they have suffered and I have $\frac{1}{2}$ case at a rate size further taken into account that the maximum sentence for such offences $\mathcal{J}^{\text{max}}(M_{\text{max}}) = \mathcal{V}^{\text{max}}(M_{\text{max}})$ carry the maximum of 14 years. the internation, Even the, a number and

$\overline{2}$

$\sim$ $\sim$

たいまれたすがいさいがく

$-300$

$\mathbf{v}_{\mathcal{M}} \leq \mathbf{v}_{\mathcal{M}}$ Court: Each accused is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. where the contraction particles in a probability of a probability of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and $\beta$ and $\beta$ are probability of the probability of the probability of the probability of the probability of the probability of the pr $R/A$ Explained.

$-\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{L}_1}$

$s_{\text{gd}}$ . The set is a set HWIGHT.

peranjen i uni 2 teras I. MUKANZA $\label{eq:1} \text{constant} \quad \text{if} \quad \text{and} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{with} \quad \text{$ $\mathcal{A} \subset \mathcal{A}^{\perp}$ $\gamma_{\varepsilon} \xi_{\overline{\omega},\overline{\varepsilon}}( \xi_{\overline{\omega}}, \psi_{\overline{\omega}}) = \psi_{\overline{\omega}}^{\varepsilon, \varepsilon} \psi_{\overline{\omega}}$ $\frac{1}{10}$ The $\gamma$ bits control A satiron analysis from to set the trip

mon to

all strain wave Court Order: The exhibit the bicycle to be returned to the owner.

( ) of ( ) respect if there and part $\partial_{\Gamma} \, \partial_{\Gamma} \, D \, [G, E]$

a of the at Jacki in the previous Government. Sgd: 1. E. Barrison $\mathcal{L}_{\text{eff}} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{eff}}$ Home $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} = \{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 3, 5, 7, 7, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4,$ ( I. MUKANZA )

the state of the state of the process

$10/8/90 \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-12} \text{ and } 10^{-$

$\label{eq:2.1} \mathcal{E} = \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \quad , \quad \mathcal{E} = \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \quad , \quad \mathcal{E} = \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E} \mathcal{E}$

$\label{eq:1} \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} = \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\dagger} \quad \mathcal{A}^{\$