The court found that although the accused could have been boxed by the deceased, there was no evidence that the accused was under apprehension of death or grievous hurt from the nature of the attack mounted by the un-armed and probably then tipsy deceased.
The circumstances did not present a situation in which the accused reasonably believed that the immediate use of force to repel the attack by the deceased was necessary to defend himself against that danger. At no point did the accused demonstrate by his actions that he did not want to fight or that he was prepared to temporise and disengage and perhaps to make some physical withdrawal.
According to the court, the prosecution had proved that the death was a homicide. Not having found any lawful justification or excuse for the assault that inflicted the fatal injury, the court stated that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the deceased’s death was unlawfully caused.
The deceased’s act of suddenly punching the accused on the back of his head was a provocative act of sufficient gravity to cause loss of self-control. From all accounts, the accused immediately snapped and reacted with explosive anger in the heat of passion. The defence of provocation was hence available to the accused and it had not been disproved by the prosecution. The court concluded that the element of malice aforethought therefore had not been proved.
Whether whoever assaulted the deceased intended to cause death or knew that the manner and degree of assault would probably cause death; Whether there was a trigger of provocation in the killing of the deceased and what was the test for the defence of provocation.
The accused, a refugee in Maaji III Refugee Settlement Camp in Adjumani District, was part of a team of casual labourers that had been engaged by P.W.2 to dig a number of pit latrines. Differences arose between him and the team over payment of their wages for the job, claiming that he had underpaid them.
Negotiations over the claimed outstanding payment stalled prompting the accused and his colleagues to threaten P.W.2 with confiscation of his motorcycle. As the accused made for the motorcycle, an altercation erupted between him and the deceased resulting in the deceased falling onto the ground.
It was testified that the accused boxed the deceased onto the ground, hurting the back of his head in the process and stamped him on the chest as he lay on the ground and later died. The accused stated that he simply pushed him but because he was already drunk, he stumbled onto the ground, but did not sustain any injury.
The death of the deceased was caused by the accused in a state of sudden and extreme provocation. The accused was not guilty and was acquitted of the offence of murder c/s 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. He was therefore guilty of the offence of manslaughter c/s. 187 and 190 of the Penal Code Act and was accordingly convicted for that offence.
Lawful self-defence existed when the accused reasonably believed that he or she was in imminent danger of an attack; immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger and the accused used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.
For a court to infer that an accused killed with malice aforethought, it had to consider if death was a natural consequence of the act that caused the death and whether the accused foresaw death as a natural consequence of the act.