Share
Uganda v Bulago (Criminal Session No. 65/1995) [1994] UGHCCRD 6 (21 November 1994)
- Citation
- [1994] UGHCCRD 6
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kato, J
- Case number
- Criminal Session No. 65/1995
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kato, J
- Case number
- Criminal Session No. 65/1995
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that none of the witnesses identified the accused as the perpetrator of the robbery. The alleged confession was made under duress and was not corroborated by independent evidence, as none of the askaris to whom the admission was made were called to testify. The evidence of recent possession was lacking, as there was no clear link established between the accused and the recovered weighing scale and gun. The police witnesses did not witness the recovery of the exhibits and could not provide direct evidence connecting the accused to the crime. In light of these deficiencies, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused, and no reasonable tribunal could convict on the available evidence.
Court disposition
acquittal
Orders
- The accused is acquitted of the offence of robbery under section 71(1) of the T.I.D.
- The accused is to be set free unless held for some other lawful purpose.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda
RespondentNo. RA 76401 L/CPL Bulago Abdalah
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Session Case / Ruling on Case to Answer
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence to require the accused to answer the charge of robbery.
- 02
Whether the accused was properly identified as the perpetrator of the robbery.
- 03
Whether the alleged confession by the accused is admissible and reliable evidence.
Party arguments
- Respondent
- The prosecution argued that the accused was involved in the robbery at Yusufu Mukasa's home, relying on witness testimony and alleged confession obtained during arrest. They contended that the weighing scale and gun recovered were linked to the accused, and that his admission to the askaris constituted evidence of guilt.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Bhatt v. R. (1957) EA 334
At the close of the prosecution case, the test is whether a reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself, could convict the accused on the evidence if he chose to remain silent.
- 02
Section 24, Evidence Act (implied); general principles of criminal procedure
Evidence obtained under torture or duress is inadmissible and cannot be relied upon to convict an accused.
- 03
Section 172 and 273(2) Penal Code Act; case law on identification
Identification evidence must be clear and satisfactory; failure to identify the accused undermines the prosecution case.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that none of the witnesses identified the accused as the perpetrator of the robbery. The alleged confession was made under duress and was not corroborated by independent evidence, as none of the askaris to whom the admission was made were called to testify. The evidence of recent possession was lacking, as there was no clear link established between the accused and the recovered weighing scale and gun. The police witnesses did not witness the recovery of the exhibits and could not provide direct evidence connecting the accused to the crime. In light of these deficiencies, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused, and no reasonable tribunal could convict on the available evidence.
Obiter and limits
- The story of Yusufu Mukasa would have been completed if there was evidence showing who led those who recovered the exhibits to where they were found.
- The alleged admission by the accused cannot be treated seriously because it was obtained under torture and is unsupported by independent testimony.
- None of the local Administration askaris to whom the alleged admission was made was called as a witness, further weakening the prosecution case.
Court disposition
acquittal
- The accused is acquitted of the offence of robbery under section 71(1) of the T.I.D.
- The accused is to be set free unless held for some other lawful purpose.
Source and reliance status
HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA
CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. 65/1994
UGANDA : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: VERSUS
A1: NO. RA 76401 L/CPL. BULAGO ABDALAH :::::::::::: ACCUSED BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. M. KATO
RULING
The accused No. RA 76401 L/CPL Bulago Abdalah is indicted for robbery contrary to the provisions of sections 172 and 273(2) of the Penal Code Act. He pleaded not guilty to the indictment. Originally he was indicted with another man called Muwaya Yakubu who was reported to have escaped and the indictment was accordingly amended so that the case could proceed with the present accused alone.
This ruling is concerned with the issue of whether or not a case has been made out for the accused to answer. The evidence as led by the prosecution has been that on the night of $19/7/1992$ the accused with another person went to the home of Yusufu Mukasa and took away a weighing scale from his shop; the men who took the scale away were armed with a gun, after they had carried away the weighing scale they shot in the aire once. Nobody identified those who took away the weighing scale. Later sometime in August of the same year the accused was arrested and eventually charged with the robbery which had been committed on 19/7/1992 at the home of Yusufu Mukasa (PWIV).
The prosecution closed its case after having called 6 witnesses; 3 of whom were the members of the complainant's family (PWI, PWII, PWIV) and 3 were policemen (PWIII, PWV and PWVI).
The prinicples upon which this court proceeds to hold or to refuse to hold that there is a case to answer are well known and some of them were stated in the case of: Bhatt vs. R. (1957) EA 334. One of the tests to be applied is whether or not the court would proceed to convict the accused on the available evidence if the accused decided to say nothing at the close of the case for prosecution. In the instant case no witness identified the people who attacked the home of Yusufu Mukasa and took away the weighing
$.../2$ .
scale on the night in question. Both his wife (PWI) and his son (PWII) who were at home on that night frnkly told the court that they did not identify the person who carried away the weighing scale. The only evidence which would have connected the accused with this case is that of recent possession but even that evidence itself is lacking in several ways.
$-2-$
According to Yusufu Mukasa when the accused was arrested he was beaten up and in the process of being beaten up he admitted to the askaris who were beating him up that he in fact stole the weighing scale. The statement by Yusufu Mukasa cannot be treated seriously because the alleged admission was obtained under torture. None of the local Administration askaris to whom the alleged admission was made was called as a witness. The story of Yusufu Mukasa does not indicate how the weighing scale came to be connected with the accused since none of the witnesses who testified knows the circumstances under which the weighing scale and the gun were recovered. His story would have been completed if there was evidence showing who led those who recovered the exhibits to where they were found. The 3 policemen called by prosecution only spoke of having received the exhibits at different places starting with Busesa county headquarters but none of these policemen was present when the exhibits were being recovered. Their evidence cannot tell what transpired in the process of recovering the exhibits.
In these circumstances I find that prosecution has not adduced enough evidence to connect the present accused with the commission of the alleged robbery at the home of Yusufu Mukasa on the night of 19/7/1992 and I find that no reasonable tribunal properly directing its mind to the present evidence and the law of robbery would convict the accused on such evidence if the accused chose to say nothing.
I accordingly find that no prima facie case has been made out for the accused to answer I find him not guilty and I do acquit him of the offence of robbery under section 71 (1) of the T. I. D. He is to be set free unless he is being held in prison for some other lawful purposes.
> C. M. KATO JUDGE $21/11/1994$
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.