- Flynote
- Criminal law
- Case summary
- Court considered whether the prosecution had been able to make a prima facie case against the accused persons for them to be called upon to give their defense. Court held that the prosecution had not been able to prove a prima facie case against the accused persons. Court was satisfied that no evidence of assault could be drawn from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in court apart from that it was very contradictory and some point the evidence seemed to be for attempted murder. It just did not add up to hold the accused liable for assaulting the witnesses that had been brought to court to testify. Accordingly court acquitted the accused for no case to answer.
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA
AT MBALE
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL SESSION NO.0058/2000
UGANDA……………………………………………………………………. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
ABAAD AEKO AND ANOTHER ………………………………………………….ACCUSED
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUGADYA-ATWOKI
RULING:
The State closed its case after calling four witnesses. None of them said anything which would ever in the slightest point to the accused. PW4 said he was assaulted by very ninny people, hut was able to identify the accused among them, Accused had a 2-cm piece of stick and he allegedly used this to assault the witness.
He however, had a gun which was not used in the assault.
When the witness confronted the accused about the heating, the accused stopped the beating.
This was all from the witness himself. That was the evidence of attempted murder. It just simply does not add up. This court would not convict the accused if he was not to say anything. That is one of the facts for a prima facie case See Bhatt v R. No prima facie case was made out to require the accused to make his defence in respect of any of the offences under which he was charged.
I therefore record a finding of not guilty tinder S. 71 (1) T.I.D and hereby acquit the accused of the seven offences in the indictment. He is to be set free and at liberty forthwith unless he is held on other lawful charges. I am not inclined to put him on his defence merely in the hope that court might convict him of a lesser offence of simple assault. That would only he pointing that he would in his defence somehow strengthen the prosecution case: which is contrary to the law and practice of this court See Bhatt v R.
I therefore order for accused to be released as directed above.
Rugadya-Atwoki
Judge
8/7/2002