When PW8 testified, she was not cross examined on the utterances of the deceased that she was going to kill herself. That evidence remains intact. I have two versions and one of them must be true and the other false. According to exhibit "p10", PW8's room was next to that where the deceased slept. PW8 was not asked if she heard the deceased say any other words apart from offering herself to be killed by the accused. It is also not clear if the deceased knew how to operate a pistol and fire a shot. I am not satisfied why if the deceased wanted to shoot herself why she first aimed the pistol at the accused before turning to herself. Could she not do it from her bedroom and could she not shoot the accused first then turn to herself? Besides, the accused who is a Senior Police Officer witnessing a case of self shooting, would not be expected to pick up the gun from the scene before calling the police to record a case of suicide. The testimony of PW8 regarding the shooting when weighed against the accused's defence stands unchallenged. Further, when Sgt. Adanga heard the shot and went to the direction where the sound of a shot had come from, he met the accused driving out of his residence. He stopped and told him he (accused) had shot his wife accidentally and handed him the pistol. It was the evidence of OICpl. Ogwal Alex (PW1 0) who was also on night duty that when PW5 returned to the station after going out to find out about the gunshot, he told him that the OPC had shot his wife during a scuffle and was taking her to hospital. He handed him a pistol which belonged to the OPC with six rounds out of the seven which he had signed for on 11th April, 2008 from the Armory man Sgt. Ogwal Bell (PW6). PW5 was not sure if the victim was dead or alive and once PW5 found the body of the deceased abandoned by the roadside near the post office, he returned and instructed PW10 to record a case of murder by shooting. PW10 recorded the case of murder by shooting in SO/02/20104/08 and exhibited the pistol and wrote the first information sheet which was Court exhibit NO.7. Up to this stage, the events after the death of the deceased were unfolding naturally and I believe the testimonies of PW8, PW5, PW6 and PW10 in accordance with Section 113 of the Evidence Act. But as I shall show later in this judgment when dealing with the credibility of the witnesses, the case took a different twist upon light of the day with the intervention of the then Regional Police CID Officer. The defence asked me to disregard the evidence of PW8 and PW5 because they each have two contradictory statements on the file. Both PW5 and PW8 agree to have made two statements which are contradictory. Their first statements incriminate the accused while their second statements exonerate him. PW5 explained in his testimony that he made the second statement (exhibit P2) on the instructions of Rashid Juma the Regional CID Officer who had taken over the file one week later. He was even uneasy when mentioning this fact in what I believe was pressure from superior officers and even recorded the time on the second statement as having been made at 10.00, 30 minutes earlier than he made the first statement. He confirmed on oath that his first statement that tallied with the entry in the SD/02/20104/08 as the true one. SP Mugarura who was the District CID Officer and testified as PW14 explained in his evidence that he suspected the new twist from officers from the Regional CID Headquarters taking over the investigations would lead to loss of evidence and decided to photocopy the file before he handed over the file to them. Indeed it is the photocopy of PW5's statement that he produced (exhibit P3) that was available. PW5's original statement had been removed from the file and has never been seen. Rashid Juma is since dead and could not be produced to explain where he put PW5's original statement. I appreciate the difficulty of PW5 a junior officer standing by evidence that pins his District Police Commander when told by senior officers to change his position. This explanation is logical and the defence attack on it is without merit in the circumstances.