Wakilii

Uganda v Drasiku (Criminal Case No. 0014 of 2013)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCRD 55 · 2016 Accused Acquitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial — ruling on no case to answer at close of prosecution case
Decision
Accused acquitted and discharged at close of prosecution case

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

Held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of murder. The only incriminating circumstantial evidence was the accused's absence from the scene and failure to attend the funeral, but no witness placed him at or near the scene during the material time, and his absence could be explained on hypotheses consistent with innocence. Accused acquitted at close of prosecution case.

Outcome

Accused acquitted and discharged at close of prosecution case

Facts

The accused was indicted for the murder of Onziru Madalena on 11 January 2012 at Owayi village, Yumbe District. The deceased was the accused's second wife. Her body was discovered on 12 January 2012 in a bush approximately 30–50 metres from her home. A post-mortem examination revealed death by asphyxiation due to probable strangulation and sub-cranial haemorrhage caused by a blunt object to the head. There were no eyewitnesses to the killing. The last person to see the deceased alive saw her on 10 January 2012 returning from Kubala Market. The last witness to see the accused placed him at Ozivu Trading Centre, approximately four kilometres from the home, at 6:30 pm on 11 January 2012. The accused was not present when the body was discovered on 12 January, did not attend the funeral on 13 January, and was arrested on 16 January 2012 in Maracha District. The prosecution called eight witnesses. At the close of the prosecution case, defence counsel submitted there was no case to answer.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case of murder against the accused at the close of the prosecution case.
  2. Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the accused's alleged disappearance from the scene and failure to attend his wife's funeral, was sufficient to require him to offer a defence.

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty.
  • Accused acquitted.
  • Accused to be set free forthwith unless lawfully held on other charges.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Prima Facie Case — Test at Close of Prosecution Case
At the close of the prosecution case, a prima facie case is established when the evidence adduced is such that a reasonable tribunal, properly directing its mind on the law and evidence, would convict the accused if no evidence or explanation was set up by the defence. The prosecution is not required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt at this stage.
Criminal Procedure — No Case to Answer — Grounds for Finding No Prima Facie Case
A finding of no prima facie case is justified when there has been no evidence to prove an essential ingredient of the alleged offence, or when the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination or is manifestly unreliable that no reasonable court could safely convict on it.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — Irresistible Inference of Guilt
For circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, it must point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused. The inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances must produce moral certainty to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial Evidence — Disappearance from Scene — Not Sufficient Alone Without Corroboration
Disappearance of an accused from the scene of a crime soon after the incident is a highly incriminating piece of circumstantial evidence but is not relied upon in isolation. It serves as corroboration of other evidence. Where it is the only incriminating fact standing on its own and no witness saw the accused running away, it is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Hearsay Evidence — Oral Evidence Must Be Direct
Oral evidence must, in all cases, be direct. If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he or she saw it. Evidence of a police officer who relates what others told him, where those persons are not called as witnesses, is inadmissible hearsay.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (19)

  • Wabiro alias Musa v R [1960] EA 184
  • Kadiri Kyanju and Others v Uganda [1974] HCB 215
  • Rananlal T. Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332
  • Uganda v Alfred Ateu [1974] HCB 179
  • Gusambizi s/o Wesonga v R (1948) 15 EACA 63
  • R v Tubere s/o Ochen (1945) 12 EACA 63
  • Uganda v Manuela Awacango and Another (HC Criminal Session Case No. 16 of 2006)
  • Teper v R [1952] AC 480
  • Simoni Musoke v R [1958] EA 715
  • R v Kipkering Arap Koske and Another (1949) 16 EACA 135
  • Bogere Charles v Uganda (SC Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1998)
  • Remegious Kiwanuka v Uganda (SC Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1995)
  • Uganda v Magezi Gad (HC Criminal Session Case No. 108 of 2007)
  • Lulu v Uganda (CA Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2009)
  • Uganda v Kabandize [1982] HCB 93
  • Franswa Kizza v Uganda [1983] HCB 12
  • Uganda v Simon Onen [1991] HCB 7
  • Israili Epuku s/o Achientu (1934) 1 EACA 161
  • [1962] All ER 448

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Drasiku (Criminal Case No. 0014 of 2013) [2016] UGHCCRD 55 (18 August 2016)
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.