act of firing the bullet into a head would cause death. On this basis alone, I would find that the Prosecution has proved malice aforethought. However, there is an aspect regarding the conduct of the accused which is intertwined with the ingredient of participation. The accused contends the injuries were self inflicted by the deceased while the Prosecution argues that the accused fired the lethal bullet. It is, therefore, prudent if I discuss the accused's conduct when dealing with participation as I do so here below. The Prosecution evidence in regard to participation is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. There were only two eye witnesses to this act. The accused and the deceased. The deceased is not available to give her account of what happened and the accused pins her death on her suicide. The Prosecution contends it was a homicide committed by the accused and the learned Principal State Attorney asked me to evaluate the following circumstantial evidence. (i) Statements of the accused to Prosecution witnesses; PW8 testified the accused told her "I have killed. My child will grow with milk" (sic); PW5 O/Sgt Adanga testified the accused told him "I have killed my wife accidentally" and handed in the pistol. PW14 testified that the accused told him he was going to report to CID Headquarters. PW7 (PIC Oketcho Nico) who also rang the accused was told he was going to report himself. The Prosecution contends these were utterances of the killer and proves his participation rendering the cause of death unlawful. (ii) Threats. The Prosecution submits that PW8 testified about the quarrel that the accused and deceased had that day (19th April, 2008) after which the deceased rang her two sisters PW2 and PW3 to inform them of the looming danger. PW2 (Asekenye) testified that the deceased rang her on 19th April, 2008 at about 8.00 pm and told her the accused was threatening to kill her because somebody had rang him alleging she had been in a lodge in Kampala with another man and requested the witness to pray for her. Later at midnight same night, somebody rang her to say the deceased had been shot by the accused and was in Kawolo Hospital and she should hurry there. PW3 (Atim Mary) also testified that on the same day (19th April, 2008) at about 7.00 pm, the deceased called her and told her in a depressed voice that the accused had alleged she had been in a lodge with a man. That she had explained she had been to Owino market to buy clothes but the accused never believed her. The phone went off before the witness could advise her on what to do. The following morning, PW2 called her to say the deceased had been shot dead. The learned Principal State Attorney cited the case of Mureeba Janet & 2 Ors. Versus Uganda Criminal Appeal 13/2003 (SC) and Section 30(a) of the Evidence Act for the proposition that these threats constituted circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. (iii) Conduct of the accused after. The Prosecution contends that the accused did not call PW2 and PW3 to inform them of the tragedy and instead disappeared after dumping the body by the