Wakilii

Uganda v Draleke (Criminal Session Case 255 of 1993)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 54 · 1994 Acquittal Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial for murder in High Court
Decision
Accused acquitted and discharged

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

The accused was charged with murder. The court found that while the accused admitted knocking the deceased with his elbow, causing her death, the act was accidental. The accused was pulling a stick from another person when his elbow struck the deceased who was standing behind him. Under section 9(1) of the Penal Code Act, a person is not criminally responsible for an event that occurs by accident. The court acquitted the accused.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged

Facts

On 7 December 1991 at Ringa village in Moyo District, people including the accused, the deceased Sabina Indiya, and others gathered at Delphina Eimani's home to drink enguli. A quarrel broke out between Lanyini Kareyo and the accused. The host chased everyone from her home. Shortly after, an alarm was raised by Night Aselua, the daughter of the deceased, claiming the accused had killed her mother. At the scene, witnesses found the deceased lying down, vomiting, and she died shortly thereafter. The accused was arrested at his home. The prosecution alleged the accused struck the deceased deliberately. The accused explained that while forcefully pulling a stick from Lanyini Kareyo, who had struck him with it, his elbow accidentally knocked the deceased who was standing behind him unknown to him. The deceased fell and died. No post-mortem examination was conducted. The deceased was buried after three days.

Issues

  1. Whether the death of Sabina Indiya was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. Whether the accused caused the death of the deceased.
  3. Whether the accused caused the death of the deceased unlawfully.
  4. Whether the death occurred accidentally such that the accused was not criminally responsible under section 9(1) of the Penal Code Act.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of the offence charged.
  • Accused ordered to be set free forthwith unless held on some other lawful ground.

Rules and key headnotes

Murder — Essential ingredients of the offence
In a charge of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the person alleged murdered is dead; (2) that the death was caused by the accused; (3) that the accused unlawfully caused the death; and (4) that the accused had malice aforethought when he caused the death of the deceased.
Proof of death — Medical evidence not essential
Where there is no medical evidence, death can still be proved beyond reasonable doubt by other cogent evidence. Medical evidence is the best evidence to prove death but it is by no means the only evidence.
Unsworn evidence of child of tender age — Corroboration required
The unsworn statement of a child of tender age requires corroboration as a matter of law. Where corroboration is lacking, the unsworn statement cannot be acted upon.
Accidental death — Section 9(1) Penal Code Act — Criminal responsibility
Under section 9(1) of the Penal Code Act, a person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission which occurs independently of the exercise of his will or for an event which occurs by accident. Where death results from an accidental act, the accused is not criminally responsible.
Standard of proof — Fanciful possibilities
If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence 'of course it is possible but not in the least probable', the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The law does not admit fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Republic v Chaya and Another (1973) EA 800
  • Uganda v Kulabako Night Jennifer (Kampala Law Report Part 11, 1990-91, p.78)
  • Miller v Minister of Pension [1947] 2 All ER 372

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Draleke (Criminal Session Case 255 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 54 (25 April 1994)
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.