The evidence of PW2 and PW3 when analysed or examined narrowly reveal proximity
between the reporting of the threats and the subsequent death just a few hours. These in my
view are statements that constitute circumstances of a transaction that identify the killer who
caused her death. This evidence is relevant under \section 30(a) of the Evidence Act which
provides;
"Statements, written or verbal of relevant facts made by a person who is
dead ........................... are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:(a) When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his or her death or as to
any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his or her death in cases
in which the case of that person's death comes into question and the statements are
relevant whether the person who made them was or was not at the time when they
made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceedings
in which the cause of his or her death comes into question.
(b)
(c) The last aspect which was advanced by the Prosecution relates to the conduct of the
accused after the death of the deceased. The Prosecution contends that by depositing
the body by the roadside and going in hiding after lying he was going to report to CID
Headquarters were acts inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. The defence
argued to the contrary that the accused did not hide the body but left it where it could
be recovered easily and his rushing to the village was not an act of disappearance but
a rush to avail cows to the deceased's relatives so that they do not cause mayhem to
property and lives of the accused and his relatives.
The accused is no ordinary person but a Senior Police Officer who was commanding the
District of Mukono. He testified that he feared to be arrested if he went with the body to
the Police Station and could neither leave the body at the Hospital because she had not
died in admission. Was he so confused or was he overtaken by the desire to protect his
property and the lives of his relatives by rushing to the village to organize cows to cool
the tempers of the deceased's relatives? Was this a reasonable conduct or was it conduct
of a guilty person?
In Uganda Versus Yowana Baptist Kabandize (1982) HCB 93, this Court held that the
conduct of the accused immediately after the death of the deceased of running away from
the scene of crime and of being in a restless mood in the swamp clearly showed a guilty
mind and in Remegious Kiwanuka Versus Uganda Criminal Appeal 41 of 1995, the
Supreme Court held that the disappearance of an accused person from the area of a crime
soon after the incident may provide corroboration to other evidence that he has
committed the offence. This is because such sudden disappearance from the area is
incompatible with innocent conduct of such a person. I was asked by the defence to treat
the conduct of the accused as normal. He went home to sort out the deceased's relatives
and make burial arrangements before reporting as he did.
If I may pause the question, why would the accused want to have the deceased buried
before he gives his side of the story to the police? The deceased had died of a gunshot
wound from a pistol the accused had signed for from the armory. Why did he believe he
should only provide an explanation after the body has been buried? Is this the innocent
conduct of a District Police Commander? I was asked to consider that he would have
hidden the body of the deceased if he was guilty. I find this, with respect, untenable,