witnesses like PW4, PW8, PW5 were aware that the accused had an injured wife in his vehicle, would he hide away the body and claim nothing had happened? He would have to account for her. PW8 had ran away from the vehicle once she became aware the deceased was dead and had run back to the barracks while wailing. How then could the accused hide the body? When I analyse the conduct of the accused from the perspective that the deceased shot herself, I find that such conduct raises more questions than answers. The accused tampers with the scene by removing the pistol. He deposits the body on the road and concentrates on appeasing the deceased's relatives with cows and provides his brother (DW2) with money to go to Lugazi to pick the body for burial and takes his time (8 days) before reporting to the Police Headquarters. When he eventually reports, he says the deceased killed herself. I would say no. if she had killed herself, the accused would have involved the police at that stage to establish that fact and would not have dumped the body by the roadside. He could have made a report to his station at Lugazi and if there was any fear of reprisals, he should have alerted his relatives to take care of the situation the way they did because he did not physically appear in public even in the village. He was in my view a fugitive who could run but could not hide forever. The State called expert witnesses like the medical doctor (PW11) and Ms. Robinah Kirinya (PW15) who added little value to the case if any. PW3 who saw the body in the mortuary was emphatic that the deceased was pregnant and that a feutous had been removed from her following an operation but Dr. Bachwa said he never examined the rest of the body. He only looked at the wound on the face and did not turn the body to do an examination or observation of the whole body. Though he admitted to having no facilities to do an autopsy, his treatment of the duty to carry out a postmortem was wanting. He filled PF 488 in such a scanty manner that showed he was not suitable for the job. He must have filled the form from some unseemly place. Similarly the ballistic expert had no finding relevant to this case. There was no dispute about the capacity of the pistol to fire a bullet and yet that is the only confirmation she gave. She takes her time to do analysis and could not tell when the pistol last fired. She only added to our time and paper usage. The lady and gentleman assessors gave me separate opinions. The gentleman assessor was not clear in his opinion but observed that since the deceased asked the accused to kill her, there was no malice aforethought. He advised me to find the accused guilty of manslaughter. I got the impression that the gentleman assessor based his opinion on the belief that the deceased put herself in harm's ways by asking the accused to kill her. The lady assessor was clear that to her there were contradictions in the Prosecution witnesses and thus the Prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused. She advised me to acquit the accused. With respect, I am unable to take either advise from the two assessors. In my summing up, I explained what constitutes circumstantial evidence and how to treat witnesses whose evidence is partly true and partly false. With respect, the two assessors did not appreciate the law as stated and took the absence of the eye witnesses as lack of direct evidence to mean that the case was not proven. Anticipating the complex nature of the evidence before the Court and its bulk, I had asked at the end of the summing up notes, for the assessors thus: