Wakilii

Rex v Mimbi (Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1945)

East African Court of Appeal · [1946] EACA 21 · 1946 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder in the High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
Conviction upheld

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

A dying declaration as to the cause of death that does not comply with procedural requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be admitted under section 223 CPC, but remains admissible under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act as relevant evidence. Section 32(1) does not require the declarant to be under expectation of death and applies regardless of procedural compliance with other statutory provisions.

Outcome

Conviction upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted of murder in the High Court of Tanganyika. The victim was a dying woman who made a statement to Mr. Gawthorne concerning the circumstances of her death. The statement was interpreted from Kinyaturu into Kiswahili by Musa s/o Saidi. The trial judge excluded the dying woman's statement on the ground that procedural requirements under section 221 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been complied with, including failure to give prescribed notice. The Crown appealed the exclusion. Assessors at trial believed the murder was not the work of outsiders.

Issues

  1. Whether a statement by a dying person as to the cause of death, not taken in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, could be admitted in evidence under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Dying Declarations — Admissibility under Indian Evidence Act
A statement by a dying person as to the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death is admissible under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act even where procedural requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code have not been complied with.
Evidence — Dying Declarations — Section 32(1) Indian Evidence Act — Expectation of Death Not Required
Under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, a dying declaration is relevant whether or not the declarant was under expectation of death at the time the statement was made.
Criminal Procedure — Dying Declarations — Section 223 Criminal Procedure Code
Where procedural requisites under section 221 Criminal Procedure Code are not complied with, a dying declaration cannot be read at trial under section 223 Criminal Procedure Code in the manner of a statutory statement or deposition taken before a magistrate.
Evidence — Dying Declarations — Distinction Between Section 223 CPC and Section 32(1) Evidence Act
Section 223 Criminal Procedure Code and section 32(1) Indian Evidence Act provide separate and distinct bases for admissibility of dying declarations; failure to satisfy procedural requirements for admission under one provision does not preclude admission under the other.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.221
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.223
  • Indian Evidence Act s.32(1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Rex v Mimbi (Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1945) [1946] EACA 21 (1 January 1946)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.