Facts
Josephat Somisha alias Maziku the appellant, was at the material time, employed as a watchman by Tabora Region Co-operative Union. On 1/5/90, it was discovered that 18 louver glasses had been extracted from windows and one typewriter stolen.Through interrogation by Sungusungu, the appellant confessed to have stolen the louver glasses but not the typewriter. The appellant, in his cautioned statement to 7909 D/Cpl. Benjamin, further confessed to have stolen the louver glasses. On the strength of this evidence, the trial Magistrate convicted the appellant on the G charge of stealing by public servant c/s 270 and 265 of the Penal Code. In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant contended that his confessions to the Sungusungu was extracted by threats and with violence.
Held: (i) While it is trite law that the condition precedent for the admissibility of a confession is its voluntariness, a confession is not automatically inadmissible simply because it resulted from threats or promise, it is inadmissible only if the inducement or threat was of such a nature as was likely to cause an untrue admission of guilt
(ii) where you have threats and a confession far apart without a causal A connection,
and no chance of such threats inducing confession, such confession should be taken to be free of
inducement, voluntary and admissible;
(iii) it is a principle of evidence that where a confession is, by reason of threat involuntarily made, and is therefore inadmissible, a subsequent voluntary confession by the same maker is admissible, if the effect of the original torture, or threat, has before such subsequent confession, been dissipated and no longer the motive force behind such subsequent
confession
No comments:
Post a Comment