The appellants lodged the present appeal against sentence imposed by the court a quo.The appellants were both convicted of two counts of assault as defined in section 189 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]; and, secondly, convicted of indicating a witch or wizard as defined in ...
The appellants lodged the present appeal against sentence imposed by the court a quo.
The appellants were both convicted of two counts of assault as defined in section 189 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]; and, secondly, convicted of indicating a witch or wizard as defined in section 99 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].
For assault, the accused were each sentenced to 12 months imprisonment of which 3 months were suspended on usual conditions of good behaviour.
The salient facts of the State case were that the appellants and other relatives at a funeral resisted the traditional way of passing condolences by shaking hands. The complainant stretched her hand to console the appellants at a funeral and was rebuffed; following which, the appellants labelled the complainant a witch responsible for causing the death of their niece.
After indicating the complainant a witch, the appellants went outside and retrieved a log with which to assault the complainant.
The complainant escaped to a nearby bush but was followed by the appellants. The first appellant struck the complainant with an iron bar on the brow bone causing injuries and bleeding from the eye, nose, and mouth. The second appellant also struck the complainant on the back collarbone. The two then dragged the appellant back to the yard where there was a crowd and they wanted to throw the complainant in the fire. The complainant was rescued by other women and made good her escape.
The appellants were further charged and convicted of assaulting Christopher Magaya, the husband of the complainant in Count 1 and 2, when he sought to intervene and rescue his wife.
For imputation as a wizard or witch, in contravention of section 99 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], the appellants were each sentenced to pay a fine of $200, or, in default of payment, 30 days.
They did not raise any qualms.
