Uganda v Twikirize Alice (Criminal Session 91 of 2002) [2005] UGHC 128 (11 February 2005)

Full Case Text

## HCT-01 -CR-SC-0091 -2002. UGANDA PROSECUTOR VERSUS TW1K1RIZE ALICE ACCUSED BEFORE: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE LAMECK N. MUKASA JUDGMENT THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL

The accused Twikirize Alice is indicted for murder Contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. The particulars of the offence are that the Accused on 16lh September 2001 at Kabambiro II Village, Kabambiro Parish. Kamwenge District murdered Muhara Immaculate.

The Accused pleaded not guilty and was represented by Mr. Kangye Mugabi ofthe Legal Aid Project, Fort Portal. The prosecution was conducted by Ms Rose Tumuheise, a Resident State Attorney Fort Portal.

The prosecution's case rested on the evidence of Allred Mbalinda (PW1), No. 25757 D/CPL Kitaburaza Deus (PW2), Bikora Erenisto (PW3) No. 20540 W/PC Yolyamaye Harriet (PW4). Byaruhanga Charles (PW5), D/ASP Tindyebwa Johnson (PW6). Hellen Mugabirwe (PW7). Kategaya Dancan (PW8) and Nsemererwe Jailes **(PW9).**

Alfred Mbalinda (PW1) testified that he is the Chairperson LC. L Kabambiro II Village. Kabambiro Parish. Kamwenge District. He knew the Accused as the wife of Byaruhanga Charles (PW5) a resident of Kabambiro II Village. That in the morning of 16th September 2001 while at his home, two children. Kadogo and Kategaya Dancan (PW8) reported to him the disappearance of their sister Muhara Immaculate. As Chairperson of the village the witness organised a search for the child. Muhara Immaculate, but to no avail. That when people had gathered and the witness asked Kadogo and PW8 where they had last seen Muhara before her disappearance the two boys informed the witness that that day

accused produced a panga which she slated she had cut the child with. That the child has never been seen again and her body was not recovered as the river was Hooded for about three months and with strong currents. when they were going to graze cattle they had left Muhara at home with their mother, the Accused. That on their return for lunch they had found the accused looking for Muhara. That the witness reported the disappearance to Kamwenge Police Station on 17th September 2001. In the witness' presence, when the accused was persuaded by her -inlaw Bemera Benon and the Defence Secretary Bikora (PW3). the Accused confessed to the gathering that she had cut the child, thrown her into River Mpanga and her body swept away by the Hooded river currents. That two police officers were deployed to investigate the disappearance. The witness, in the company of the police officers and other people who had gathered, were led by the Accused to Mpanga River. Al the river banks the Accused showed them the spot where she had thrown the child into the river. About 10 meters from the spot where the child was thrown into the river a sweater was recover within the river waters stuck within the thorns on a rock within the river. Thai the

PW3 Bikora Everisto testified that he is the Defence Secretary Kabambiro II Village. That in September 2001 he received a letter from the area Chairperson (PW1) directing him to escort the Accused to the Police station on allegations that she had thrown her cowife's child in River Mpanga. That on the way to the Police Station the Accused confessed to them that she had thrown the child in River Mpanga and volunteered to show them where she had thrown the child. They all the same took the Accused to the police station where she again volunteered to show them where she had thrown the child. The accused led the police officers, the witness and others to a spot at River Mpanga. which was below the Accused's husband's kibanja. as the place where she has thrown the child into the river. That the witness and others searched for the child's body in the waters of the River but failed to recover it. In the course of the search the Chairperson (PW1) recovered a sweater which had got stuck in the plants within the river. That the accused handed over a panga which she said she had cut the child's hands with before throwing her into the river.

search went on for about a week after which he received a letter from Kaniwenge Police Station directing him to report with the Accused to the Police. That night on being awakened by his neighbour, one Mugabe, at around 1.00a.m. he discovered that the accused had run out of their house with her baby and belongings. With the Chairperson a search was mounted that night for the accused. At around 3.00 a.m. they found the Accused at Rushango about a mile from their home along the road to Kibulala leading to Mbarara. The Accused was arrested. That as they were escorting the Accused to the police station, while around Kaniwenge Market, the Accused confessed that she had killed Muhara and volunteered to take them where she had thrown the child. They took the Accused to the police station where again she confessed killing Muhara and volunteered to lead them to the scene. That the Accused look the witness, the police officers and others to a place below the witness's home within his kibanja and showed them a spot at which she had thrown Muhara into the river waters. The river waters had over Hooded. That some boys swam into the waters of the river in search of Muhara but failed to get her or her body todate. That a sweater wzas recovered from the river waters which the witness recognised as that regularly worn by his daughter Muhara. That the accused directed the police to the witness's house, where the panga the Accused had used to cut Muhara. before throwing her into the river, was recovered. Byaruhanga Charles (PW5) testified that he is the father of Muhara Immaculate and the husband of Twikirize Alice, the Accused. On 16lh September 2001 while al his Restaurant at Kabambiro Trading Centre a boy called Byaruhanga Julius came from his home and informed him that Muhara Immaculate was missing. That Muhara was born to him and his second wife Sarafina Ndayisenga but staying at the Accused's matrimonial home. When he went home the Accused told the witness that at around 10.00a.m. she had called out for Muhara for food but she could not respond and on searching around she was no where to be seen. That a search was mounted for Muhara but in vain. That the

PW2 No. 25757 D/CPT Kitaburaza Bens testified that in 200 J he was attached to Kaniwenge police station. On 26th September 2001 he received the Accused who was escorted to the police station by the Chairperson Kabambiro L. C. I called Alfred Mbalinda

(PW1) and others on allegations of having killed Immaculate Muhara a girl aged about five years. That when interviewed the Accused admitted having killed the child and volunteered to take the witness to River Mpanga where she had drowned the child.

The witness together with W/PC Yolyanaye and others were led by the Accused to a scene al River Mpanga. That at the scene the Accused told the witness and the others that she had undressed the girl of her T/shirt. killed her with a panga and thrown the body into the river waters. That she had also thrown the child's T/shirt and slippers in the river waters. The witness then noticed a T/shirt entangled in the tree branches which were lying in the river waters. The Chairperson (PW1) entered the waters and recovered the T/shirt. The Accused showed the witness a panga she stated she had used to cut the child. The witness took the T/shirt and panga as exhibits and drew a sketch plan ofthe scene.

PW4 No. 20540 W/PC Yolyanaye Harriet testified that in 2001 she was stationed at Kamwenge police station. On 26lh September 2001 upon a report by Chairman LC.l Kabambiro. the witness went to Kamwenge Town where she arrested the Accused who was being escorted by many people to the police station. The witness handed the Accused to D/CPL Kitabulaza (PW2) who interrogated the Accused. The Accused led the witness, PW2 and others to river Mpanga at Kabambiro Village where the Accused stated was the scene where she had drowned the child. That at the scene the accused told them that she had removed the child's T/shirt and slippers, cut her with a panga and thrown her into the river waters. That she had also thrown the T/Shirt and slippers into the river. The witness testified that the /'T/shirt was recovered from the river. That at her home the Accused produced to them a panga she stated she had used to cut the child. The T/shirt and panga and the Accused were taken to Kamwenge Police Station. That the body of the child was not recovered.

D/ASP Tindyebwa Johnson (PW6) testified that on 2nd October 2001 he recorded a charge and caution statement from the Accused. After a trial within a trial I ruled that the Accused's Charge and Caution Statement was wilfully and voluntarily recorded from the

Accused and admissible in evidence. The Accused's Charge and Caulion Statement recorded in Runyankole - Rukiga was received in evidence as Exhibit P4(a) and its English Translation as Exhibit P4(b).

Herren Mugambirwe. PW7. testified that the accused and her husband Charles Byaruhanga were the witnesses neighbours al Kabumbiro Village. That one night at around 2.00a.m. the Accused came to her home and woke her up. That when she opened the Accused told her that Sarafina had reported the child's disappearance to the Police. Thai she was afraid and was going to ran away. That despite the witness' advice and persuasion to stay the Accused insisted on going and she went away. That the witness went to Byaruhanga" s home where she found the house open and when she entered she found Byaruhanga in his bedroom deep a sleep. The witness woke-up Byaruhanga and informed him of his wife's escape. That Byaruhanga left her to guard the house and went out in search of the Accused. Byaruhanga returned with Alfred Mbalinda. the area Chairperson with the Accused. That the following day the Accused was taken to the Police.

PW8 Kategaya Dancan, a young boy aged 11 years testified that PW5, Byaruhanga Charles was his father, the Accused his step-mother and Muhara Immaculate was his late sister. That Muhara Immaculate was about five years old when he last saw her alive one Sunday in November 2001. Thai Muhara. was with the witness and Kadogo in the family farm grazing calves. That she was taken away by the Accused at around 10.00a.rn to the garden to baby sit the Accused's newly born baby. That later the Accused called the witness and Kadogo for lunch and asked them where Muhara was. That they had not seen the Accused as she came back home and they had not seen Muhara from the time she had gone with the Accused and they so informed the Accused. The witness has never seen Muhara again since then.

PW9 Nsemererwe Jailes testified that one Sunday while going for prayers she saw the Accused with a panga and three sticks al around 10.00a.m. in the Accused's husband's

farm. That the accused was also carrying a baby. Thai die Accused was coming from Mpanga River.

In her defence the Accused gave evidence on oath. She testified that she knew Muhara Immaculate who was aged five years and the daughter of her husband Charles Byaruhanga (PW5) and one Sarafina. That she last saw Muhara on 16th September 2001 at home while the Accused was going to the gardens. That she had left Muhara with Marriho Musumba, Byaruhanga Julius. Peace Arinaitwe. Kasisi. Muyaya and her co-wife one Mudasi. That she went in the company of Mbarusa Alex. That she left the garden and came back home at around mid-day. Muhara and Peace Arinaitwe were not at home and when she sent Musumba to call the two to take them for immunisation at Kabambiro Trading Centre they were no where to be seen where the calves were grazing. That when Musumba went to Mpanga River where the cows were being grazed he only found there Peace, Kategaya (PW8) and Kadogo. That when asked about Muhara's whereabouts Peace told the witness that Muhara had gone to her mother. Sarafina about half a mile away. That when she sent Musumba to collect Muhara from her mother's home Musumba came back without Muhara and told the Accused that Sarafina had told him that Muhara had not reached her home and was not there. The accused set message of Muhara's disappearance to Byaruhanga (PW5). That Byaruhanga did not take any effort to search for or report the disappearance ofthe child and on 17th September 2001 she sent Alex Mbarusa and Byamukama to report the child's disappearance to the Chairman LC. I. Il was thereafter that the search for the child started in vain. The Accused denied killing Muhara. denied drowning Muhara in river Mpanga and denied leading the police and other people to Mpanga river. The Accused testified that it was Sarafina, Muhara's mother, who led the police to Mpanga River on allegations that the Accused had drowned Muhara in the river.

In all criminal of offences the Accused enjoys a presumption of innocence until proved guilty by the prosecution or she pleads guilty. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove both the charge and the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Except in a few exceptional and or statutory cases, and the instant case

is not one ofsuch cases, this burden never shifts to the Accused. There is no burden upon the Accused to prove his innocence. See Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Woolimgion v.-s DPP (1935) AC 462. Oketh Okale & others v/s R (1965) EA 555. Uganda v/s Dick Ojok (1992 -1993) HCB 54.

On a charge of murder Contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each and every one of the following ingredients:-

- (i) That the person named in the indictment is dead, in this case Muhara Immaculate. - (ii) The death ofthat person was caused unlawfully. - (iii) The killing was done with malice aforethought, and - (iv) The accused person caused the death of that person.

## See: Uganda v/s Kassim Obura & another (1981) HCB 9. Uganda v/s Ronald Mwaka (1996)1 KALR 112.

The first ingredient is whether Muhara Immaculate is dead. It is the testimony of PW8 Dancan Kategaya that he last saw Muhara Immaculate alive one Sunday in November 2001 and he has never seen her again. The Accused in her testimony stated that she last saw Muhara on 16lh September 2001. That the Accused instructed Muhara and one Peace to graze calves and she went to the garden in the company of Mbarusa Alex. That on her return Muhara was not at home and on inquiring Peace told her that Muhara had gone to her mother's Sarafina. That on sending one Musumba to Sarafina's home to collect Muhara. Musumba reported back that Sarafina had informed him that Muhara had not reached her home. Evidence on record shows that Muhara has never been seen ever since alive or dead. All the prosecution witnesses and the Accused, testified that the search for Muhara or for her body was in vain. She has never been seen nor her body found.

In the Tanzania case of Leonard Mpoma v/s Republic EAC'A Crim Appl, 103-DSM -75 1978 LRT 58 the Court of Appeal held that death may be proved by circumstantial

evidence even without the production of the body of the alleged deceased person. In Kimweri v/s Republic (1968) EA 452 it was held that although death may be proved by circumstantial evidence that evidence must be such as to compel the inference of death and must be such as to be inconsistent with any theory of the alleged deceased being alive, with the result that taken as a whole the evidence leaves no doubt whatsoever that the person in question is dead. It is not enough that the circumstances of the case raise a considerable suspicion that the person in question was dead. The circumstances must compel irresistibly the inference of death. See also Uganda v/s Yosefu Nyabenda (1972) 2 ULR 19.

D/ASP Tindyebwa Johnson testified that the Accused in her charge and caution statement (Exhibit $P4(a)$ ) stated:-

\*\* ---------------------At around 10.00 a.m. I sent one of the children of Sarafina to go and collect water from River Mpanga. My intention was to kill this child. When I went to where Immaculate had gone to collect water from in River Mpanga, I said to Immaculate to go and remove the grass from the middle of the river. She went in waters and her dress got wet and it became heavy for her. She came back and $I$ told her to remove the dress. When she removed it I threw her into the river and she got drowned. Then I later threw the dress into the river and I went home. *People started looking for Immaculate for a week and couldn't get her* -------------------------------------I told him that I was the one who threw the girl in river Mpanga. ----------and later I led the police to the river where I threw Immaculate. At the scene ----------we recovered only the sweater that I threw into the river ---------".

In her statement the Accused confesses to have drowned Immaculate in River Mpanga and to have thrown her dress into the river. That after she had drowned her, people searched for her for a week and failed to get her. That she later confessed to the Defence Secretary that she had drawn Immaculate in River Mpanga and led the Police to the scene where she had drowned the girl where only the sweater was recovered.

In her defence the Accused testified that she made a statement which was recorded by PW2 No. 25757 D/CPL Kitaburaza Bens in which she had denied drowning Immaculate and which was not exhibit $P4(a)$ . That she was later told by another man in the presence of PW2 that she should accept having drowned that girl or else she would be taken to Katoojo prison cells full of water and will not be allowed to breast feed her one and half month baby again but that if she accepted the charge she would be taken to the County Headquarters where she would be released. With that threat and promise she was made to sign in a book on a document the contents of which she did not know. That when she heard the contents of the document (Exhibit $P4(a)$ ) while in Court they were not true.

The law regarding repudiated or retracted confessions was stated in Tuwamoi v/s Uganda $(1967)$ EA 84 as follows:-

" A trial court should accept any confession which has been retracted or repudiated or both retracted and repudiated with caution and must before finding a conviction on such a confession be fully satisfied in all the circumstances of the case that the confession is true. The same standard of proof is required in all cases and usually a court will only act on the confession if corroborated in some material particular by independent evidence accepted by the court. But corroboration is not necessary in law and the court may act on a confession alone if it is fully satisfied after considering all the material points and surrounding circumstances that the confession cannot but be true".

PW1 Alfred Mbalinda testified that on 16th September 2001 he received a report from Kadogo and Kategaya Dancan (PW8) that their sister Muhara Immaculate had disappeared. Byaruhanga Charles (PW5) testified that on 16th September 2001 he was informed by one Byamukama Julius that Immaculate had gone missing. That when he went home the Accused confirmed to him the disappearance of Immaculate. Kategaya Dancan testified that he had last seen Immaculate alive one Sunday in November 2001. Here I must point out that though Kategaya talked of November the month must have been September as all the other witness talked of September. With lapse of time and considering Kategaya's age (he was 11 years at the time of his testimony) he might have forgotten the month. Also the accused in her testimony testified that she last saw Immaculate alive on 16th September 2001. It is the testimony of PW1, PW5, PW8 and the Accused that following Immaculate's disappearance a search was mounted for her. That neither Immaculate nor her dead body had ever been seen since. PW1, PW2, PW3 PW4 and PW5 testified that the Accused volunteered information that she had drowned Immaculate in River Mpanga and led them to a scene at the river banks where she

indicated a spot at which she had thrown the child into the river waters. That on searching in the river a sweater exhibit P.1 was found stuck within the shrambs in the river, but the body was not found. PW'8 identified Exhibit P1 as the sweater Immaculate was dressed in on the day of her disappearance It is the testimony of PW1 and PW5 that the river had overflooded at the time of Immaculate's disappearance, with strong currents. PW1 and PW8 and the Accused testified that Immaculate at the time of her disappearance was aged 5 years while PW5 testified that she was about 6 years old. The above evidence considered together corroborates the Accused's statement in her Charge and Caution Statement that she had thrown the child into River Mpanga. In which she had got drowned and that the week's search for her was to no avail. And further that the Accused had also thrown the sweater Immaculate had been dressed in into the river from where it was recovered. Section 29 of the Evidence Act provides:-

*Notwithstanding Sections 23 and 24, when any fact is deposed to as discovered* in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, so much of that information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved".

In her defence the Accused denied leading the search party to the river. She instead testified that it was Immaculate's mother Sarafina who had led the search party and the Accused to River Mpanga on allegations that she was going to show them where the Accused had killed Immaculate from. She further testified that when Kadogo was being taken away by his mother Sarafina following Immaculate' disappearance, he was dressed in the sweat exhibit P.1. That immediately following the disappearance of Immaculate another girl Peace had told her that Immaculate had that day left home saying she was going to her mother's Sarafina.

Mr. Kangve Mugabi. Counsel for the Defence, submitted that there is a possibility that Sarafina might have hidden Immaculate with an intention to implicate the Accused, being her co-wife, with the disappearance and assumed death of Immaculate. However PW5 testified that Sarafina had after the disappearance of Immaculate, with the permission of the clan members and in the witness' presence, gone away with Kadogo. That Sarafina

did not go with Immaculate. I he Accused testified that when she sent Musumba to go to Sarafma s and collect Immaculate so that she takes her and Peace for immunisation. Musumba had come back and told her that Sarafma had told him that Immaculate had not reached Saralina's home.

I must point out that tour would have been vital witnesses in this case were not called by the Prosecution, namely Peace, another girl also aged about 6 years then whom the Accused said had informed her that Immaculate had left home saying she was going to her mother's home, Mbarusa Alex another boy whom the Accused said she was with in the garden that day, Kadogo whom the Accused says had left home while dressed in the sweater Exhibit Pl and Sarafma who Accused says had taken away Kadogo while dressed in Exhibit Pl after the disappearance of Immaculate. However there is no legal requirement as to how many witnesses the prosecution should call to prove its case provided the witnesses it decides to call are such as would prove the case before Court to the required standard, that is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Considering the Accused's statement in her Charge and Caution Statement and her revealation to the various prosecution witnesses that she had drowned Immaculate into River Mpanga. and also thrown the sweater she was dressed in into the river, the discovery of the sweater stuck within the river scrubs, the evidence that at her disappearance Immaculate was such a young girl of only 5 or 6 years old and in view of the fact that at the material time River Mpanga was over-flooded and had strong currents and the undisputed fact that since the day of her disappearance Immaculate has never been seen again I find that taken as a whole the evidence leaves no doubt whatsoever that Immaculate Muhara is dead. I agree with the gentlemen assessors that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Immaculate Muhara died.

The next ingredient is whether the death was unlawful. It is presumed that all homicides, unless accidental or authorised b\ law are unlawful. See: Gusambizi Wesoga v/s R (1948) 15 EACA 65. Evidence shows that Immaculate was drowned into an over-flooded

river and swept away by the strong currents. Her death was unnatural. In her Charge and Caution Statement the Accused stated that her intention was to kill the child and that she threw the child into the river and she got drowned. That shows that Immaculate was intentionally and not accidentally drowned. I therefore find that the deceased's death was unlawfully caused.

The third ingredient is whether there was malice aforethought. Section 191 of the Penal Code Act provides:-

" Malice aforethought shall he deemed to be established by evidence providing *either of the following circumstances;*

- (a) An intention to cause death of any person, whether such person is the person actually killed or not, or - (b) Knowledge that the act or omission causing death will probably cause death of some person, whether such person is actually killed or not. although such knowledge is accompanied by indifference whether death is caused or not or by a wish that it may not be caused".

Such intention or knowledge is a state of mind which unless admitted, is rarely established by direct evidence. Court must therefore consider all the circumstances surrounding the killing. The accused pleaded not guilty which plea has the effect that the prosecution must adduce evidence to prove each and everyone of the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In her Charge and Caution Statement the Accused stated that her intention was to kill the child. It is the prosecution and defence evidence that at the time of her disappearance Immaculate was 5 or 6 years old. It is the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses that it was a rainy season and River Mpanga was flooded with strong currents. Therefore any body who drowned such a young girl in the waters of such a flooded fast flowing river must have known that such act would most probably result into that child's death. Such act shows an evil intention to cause death of the young girl and her body to be carried away by the strong currents of the river. In the circumstances I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that whoever drowned Immaculate acted with malice aforethought.

The last ingredient is whether the late Immaculate was killed by the Accused. None of the prosecution witnesses saw the accused drown Immaculate.

The prosecution evidence to implicate the Accused with the death of Immaculate is her charge and Caution Statement and partially circumstantial. In that statement she confesses to having thrown Immaculate until the river, and that the search for her or her body had been to no vail. I cautioned the Assessor as I have also cautioned myself of the danger of finding a conviction on a retracted or repudiated confession, as in the instant case, unless fully satisfied in all circumstances of the case that the confession is true. In the instant case 1 have already found corroboration ofthe Accused confession in the circumstances surrounding the recovery of exhibit Pl from River Mpanga. PW8 testified that he last saw Immaculate in the company ofthe Accused who had called her to go with her to help baby sit the Accused's baby. That when he next saw the Accused she was looking for Immaculate. That Immaculate, at the time the witness last saw her. was dressed is a sweater exhibit P.l, PW1 and PW4 testified that exhibit P.l was a sweater usually put on by Immaculate.

PW1, PV/2, PVV3, PW4 and PW5 testified that the Accused revealed to them that she had cut Immaculate with a panga and thrown her into River Mpanga. That when the Accused led the prosecution witnesses to the scene where she stated she had thrown Immaculate in the river lmmaculate's sweater, exhibit PI, was recovered from the area stuck in the shrubs within the river. That a panga was also recovered. However I do not intend to rely on the recovery of the panga due to the stale it was in when recovered and the place where it was recovered from. The panga was not recovered from scene where Immaculate was thrown into the river. According to some prosecution witnesses the panga was recovered from the Accused who picked it from their house. It is normal to have a panga in one's house. Others testified that it was recovered from someone who had it while the search was going on at the scene. Furthei the panga had nothing strange about it. it was clean without any blood on it. PW9's testimony doesnot in any way enhance the evidential value of the panga. She only saw the Accused in their farm carrying her baby with a panga and three sticks on a Sunday a date of which she doesnot remember. In her Charge and Caution Statement the Accused doesnot talk of cutting Immaculate before throwing her into the river. She stated that she told the girl to remove her dress. Then threw 13

her into the river and also threw the dress into the river.

PW5 and PW7 testified that the night following receipt of a letter requiring the Accused to report to the Police in connection with the disappearance (he accused attempted to run away from PW5\*s home. That despite persuation and assurances by **PW7** the Accused run away and was arrested with her baby at around 3.00a.m. a mile from their home along the road to Kibulala leading to Mbarara. Il was PW5's testimony that he had married the Accused from Bulinda. Kabale District.

Such are the circumstances in the instant case which connect the Accused with the commission of the offence. The law is that in a case depending exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, the court must find, before deciding upon conviction that inclupatory facts were incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt. See: Simon Musoke v/s R (1958) EA 715.

**I** find the Accused's attempt to escape from her husband's home not the conduct of an innocent person. Such conduct coppled with the Accused revealations to the various prosecution witnesses, the discovery of Immaculate's sweater which she was dressed in on the day of her disappearance entangled in the shrubs within the river where the Accused had led the prosecution witness plus the Accused's confession in her Charge and Caution Statement point to nothing else otherthan her guilt.

1 agree with the gentlemen Assessors who advised me to find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused is the person who caused the death of Immaculate Muhara. In the final result I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Twikirize Alice unlawfully caused the death of Immaculate Muhara. I accordingly convict her of Murder Contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the

**LAMECK 1I/2/2B05.** Penal Code Act xAncjiet^l. t N. MUKASA

## SENTENCE:-

law. I having found you Twikirize Alice guilty of Murder C/S 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act there is only one sentence authorised by law and that is death in the manner authorised by law and 1 so sentence you to suffer death in the manner authorised by

LAMdEC N. MUKASA

JUDGE/ 11/2/2005.