UGANDA V NAMANYA BAYON.....

(SUBMISSION)

PROSECUTION FINAL SUBMISSION

BRIEF FACTS;

The Accused stands charged with Attempted Murder contrary to section 204(a) of the Penal Code
Act.

On 08/06/2022, at at around 2200hrs, at Kakwazi trading centre, in Kitondo Parish, Ihunga Sub-
county, Ntungamo District, Namanya Bayon ( Accused) developed a misunderstanding with the
victim (Mucunguzi Bonus) which led to the Accused boxing the Victim heavily in the face, which blow
made the Victim to fall down backwards. As a result, the Victim became unconscious and was rushed
to Rwashamire DIVINELY Mercy Clinic, however since the Victim was in a critical condition, he was
referred to Ishaka KIU Hospital, from where he was further referred to Mbarara Referral Hospital still
unconscious.

INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE

Section 204(a) of the Penal Code Act, provides that any person who attempts, unlawfully, to cause
the death of another person commits a felony; and is liable to imprisonment for life.

Section 386(1) of the Act defines an attempt as follows: –

"When a person, intending to commit an offence, begins to put his or her intention into execution by
means adapted to its fulfilment, and manifests his or her intention by some overt act, but does not
fulfil his or her intention to such an extent as to commit the offence, he or she is deemed to attempt
to commit the offence.

(2) It is immaterial–

(a)except so far as regards punishment, whether the offendor does all that is necessary on his or her
part for completing the commission of the offence, or whether the complete fulfillment of his or her
intention is prevented by circumstances independent of his or her will, or whether the offendor
desists of his or her own motion from the further prosecution of his or her intention;

(b)that by reason of the circumstances not known to the offender, it is impossible in fact to commit
the offence."

The ingredients of the offence as echoed in Uganda v Hussein Hassan Agade 12 Ors (Criminal
Session 1 of 2010) 2016 UGHICD 4, are: –

(i) Intention to cause death of another person (malice aforethought)

(ii) Manifestation of the intention by an overt act.
(iii) Participation of the accused.

BURDEN OF PROOF

In criminal law, it is incumbent on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused person as
charged.
This burden of proof perpetually rests on the Prosecution, and does not shift to the Accused person;
except where there is a specific statutory provision to the contrary (see Woolmington vsD.P.P.
[1935] A.C. 462, and Okethi Okale & Ors. vs Republic [1965] E.A. 555). Second, the standard or
threshold required to prove the case against the Accused person is that the proof must be beyond
reasonable doubt. This does not necessarily mean proof with utmost certainty, or 100% proof.
Nonetheless, the standard is met only when, upon considering the evidence adduced, there is a high
degree of probability that the Accused in fact committed the offence. ( see Uganda v Hussein Hassan
Agade HC Crim Session Case No.1 of 2010)

In Miller vs Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All E.R. 372 at page 373 to page 374, Lord Denning stated
quite succinctly that:–

"The degree of beyond reasonable doubt is well settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry
a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the
shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to
deflect the course of justice. If evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote
possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with a sentence: 'of course it is possible but not in the
least probable', the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt; but nothing short of that will suffice."

Prosecution produced five (5) witnesses to discharge that burden, these include, PW1 Mucunguzi
Collins, PW2 Akatuhebwa Wilbert, PW3 Bantariza Wilson, PW4 Akankwasa Dickson, and PW5
Arinaitwe Danis a medical officer.

Ingredient 1. Intention to Cause death of another person. (Malice Aforethought )

According to S. 191 Penal Code Act , malice aforethought is deemed to be established from evidence
of circumstances of the intention to cause the death of any person or of the knowledge that the act
or omission causing death will probably cause the death of some person.

In order to determine whether there was an intention to cause death or that the person knew that
his act will probably cause death, the Court can consider the weapon used, the part of the body
targeted, the degree of injury and the conduct of the accused before and after the act. (See R.
Versus Tubere s/o Ochieng [1945] EACA 63).

It has been established by case law that “one may harbor at the same time, both an intent to cause
serious physical injury and an intent to cause death”. –Refer to People vs. McDavis 97 AD 2/302.

PW1, PW2, and PW4, all testified that the Accused boxed the complainant on the cheek, and the
complainant fell hitting the back of his head on the floor and started bleeding and also lost
consciousness. PW5 Arinaitwe Danis, the Medical Doctor who examined the Victim stated that the
Victim sustained brain injury, an injury classified as “Dangerous Harm” because it was capable of
causing his death. The Medical Doctor further testified that the complainant developed
posttraumatic epilepsy, and that he has not regained his speech and his upper arm is still paralysed.

The head has been established to be a vulnerable part of the body and injuries deliberately inflicted
upon the head have been held to be intended to cause death or to be accompanied by knowledge
that they would probably cause death. (See Mwathi vs. Republic [2007]2 EA 334).

The fact that the Accused punched the Victim with so much force as to make him fall backwards, and
lose consciousness, and the part of the body that the Accused boxed, on the head which Is a
vulnerable part of the body, and the degree of the injury is proof that the Accused had the
knowledge that the he would probably cause death of the victim.
 Ingredient 2. Manifestation of the intention by an overt act.

PW3, testified that Victim’s biological father, stated that he was informed by Nayebare Phiono (the
complainant’s wife) that his son Mucunguzi Bonus had been assault by one Namanya Bayon and he
that he had become dumb. That he went to the scene and found the report to be true. This is
corroborated by testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW4, who all testified that the Accused boxed the
complainant on the head. This is confirmed by PE 1 and PE2 which show that the Victim was injured
on the head causing an injury on the brain.

Therefore the Accused manifested his intention by the act of boxing the complainant on the head
with so much force to the point of the Complainant losing consciousness and getting brain damage.

Ingredient 3. Participation of the accused.

Direct identification evidence from PW1, PW2 and PW4 , are eyewitnesses and are all friends to both
the Accused and the complainant places the Accused on the crime scene and proves participation of
the Accused.

PW1 testified that he heard the Accused and the Complainant quarrelling so he moved out of the
bar to see what was happening, and that is when he saw the Accused boxing the complainant on the
cheek and the complainant fell down facing up. This is confirmed by the testimonies of both PW2
and PW4 who were also present at the scene of the crime.

The circumstances surrounding the identification, according to PW1, PW2, and PW4 are that there
was solar lights at the scene, and the fact that the identifying witnesses are familiar with the
Accused person.

The testimonies of the three eyewitnesses together with the corroborating Medical evidence prove
the participation of the Accused..

Having proved all the ingredients of the offence, the Prosecution therefore prays that the Accused
person, Namanya Bayon, be found guilty and convicted as charged.