Uganda v Okello (Criminal Session Case 427 of 1995) [1996] UGHC 40 (16 July 1996)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT SESSION HOLDEN AT GULU

CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 427 OF 1995

$UGANDA$ ......................... PROSECUTOR -versus-AMOS OKELLO .................. ACCUSED

Jus Harrist - A. S. H. G. B. A. P. HARRIST

BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. M. OKELLO

## SENTENCE

The accused was originally indicted on a charge of Murder contrary to section 183 of the Penal Code Act. On arraignment however, he offered a plea of guilty to Manslaughter, a minor and cognate offence to murder. The Resident Senior State Attorney accepted that plea. The accused was accordingly convicted on his own plea of guilty of Manslaughter contrary to section 182 of the Penal Code Act.

The facts as narrated by the Prosecuting Counsel revealed that the accused and the deceased were husband and wife respectively. According to the facts, the accused returned home in the fateful night drunk and started a drunkard quarrel on the deceased who was then found grinding sorghum. The quarrel resulted in a fight. The facts indicated that the accused assaulted the deceased first using his fist then later resorted to using an axe. From the facts the accused assaulted the deceased all over her body. From the assault the deceased died that night.

The postmortem Report revealed that the cause of death was compound fracture of the skull and brain damage. The report further indicated that both legs of the deceased were fractured.

Following the death of the deceased, the accused was arrested and charged with murder

The phylosophy of sentence is that it must befit both the offence and the offender. Manslaughter of which the accused is convicted carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. As rogards the accused, the record shows that he was 37 years in December 1993. This put him at 39 plus years now. He is a first offender who has been in custody for about three years before his trial. The time he spent on remand in custody will be taken into account when considering his sentence.

However, the facts indicated that the accused acted brutally on his wife. The injuries revealed on the deceased were testimonies of this. The skull was fractured, both legs too were fractured. The weapon he used was lethal though he denied that. According to him he did not use an axe. I think he was lying here. Had it not been because of that element of alcohol involved, the act of the accused was nearing murder. Wife killing must be condemned. This court joins right thinking members of the society in condemning that act. For that reason the accused is sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.

$\mathbf{t}$

$\overline{1}$

Jan-

G. M. OKELLO JUDGE

16th July 1996