Forensic and circumstantial evidence in Godi’s case - part 1
Akbar Hussein Godi and wife Rehema (the late) on their wedding day. File Photo
Nineteen-year-old Rehema Ceasar was shot dead on the evening of December 4, 2008 at Lukojjo village in Mukono District. She had apparently gone out for dinner with a person whose identity she had not disclosed. Nobody saw the person who shot and killed her. Nobody apparently saw the person she had gone out with for dinner. Her husband, Akbar Hussein Godi, then a 25-year-old Member of Parliament for Arua Municipality and a lawyer by profession, was charged and convicted of her murder. The prosecution presented and court used what is known as circumstantial evidence in addition to forensic evidence to convict Godi.
In Criminal Law, each offence has ingredients or elements that must separately be proved in the court of law by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. This does not mean that each element must be proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Failure to prove even one of these ingredients to the required standard will lead to automatic acquittal of the accused person of that charge. When Godi was, therefore, charged with the murder of Rehema, it was the responsibility of the prosecution to prove to court that;
• Rehema had indeed died.
• Her death had been unlawfully caused.
• Her death had been intentional, that is with malice aforethought.
• Godi caused her death or participated in causing her death.
The fact of Rehema’s death could not be contested. Her body was positively identified and court was told that she was buried at Godi’s home. Rehema died as a result of bullet wounds on the head, arm and chest. This is homicide, the killing of a person by another. It is unlawful, unless it is accidental or authorised by law. Court was told that Rehema had a disagreement with the man who shot her. The man chased her before shooting her. To court, there was no justification for the shooting in the circumstances it occurred; it was a criminal act, which, therefore, rendered the cause of death to be unlawful.
One of the cardinal issues before court was whether the act of causing this particular death was intentional.
In assessing intention, court considers the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body targeted by the killer, the intensity of the assault and the behaviour of the accused person before, during and after the act. If, for instance, the weapon used to cause death is a deadly one and without justification, then court will conclude that the death was caused intentionally. If the part of the body targeted by the assailant is a delicate or vulnerable one, then the person will have been deemed to have acted deliberately or with malice aforethought.
Evidence before court was to the effect that a gun was used to shoot and kill Rehema. The first shot disabled her and the person who shot her assisted her to walk up to the verandah of a house by the roadside. The person who shot her then went away but returned to chase her again when she moved from where he had left her. He dragged her on the ground by pulling her legs and shot her again through the head before he fled.
Court concluded that the use of a gun was a manifestation of the intent to cause death; the second shooting was to ensure that the deceased succumbed to death immediately. Court concluded further that whoever shot Rehema wanted to kill her and leave her dead. To court, malice aforethought or the intention to kill had therefore been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
At the heart of the trial was the identity of the person who shot and killed Rehema. The prosecution asked the trial judge to convict Godi of the death of his wife as the evidence presented, though circumstantial, was strong and led to the irresistible conclusion that he (Godi) shot and killed his wife.
Godi’s lawyers argued that somebody must have been responsible for the death of Rehema as Godi was not at the scene of crime, the time Rehema was shot.
Godi told court that on the night his wife was shot and killed, he was watching a play at the National Cultural Centre (National Theatre) in Kampala. And thereafter, he went to Mutungo, a Kampala suburb. In effect, he said he was somewhere else at the time the offence was committed.
In law, Godi did not have to assume any responsibility of proving that he was where he said he was. It was the responsibility of the prosecution to prove to court that Godi was telling lies.
The principles that govern court when considering circumstantial evidence are that all the facts presented during the trial are incompatible with the innocence of the accused person and incapable of any other reasonable explanation other than the guilt of the accused person. Court must be sure that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference of guilt. Court also relies on scientific evidence in cases where the evidence is entirely circumstantial. Courts often find that expert evidence of scientific nature is extremely persuasive in assisting the court to reach its own opinions.
Circumstantial evidence is defined as a series of circumstances leading to the inference or conclusion of guilt when direct evidence is not available. It is evidence which, though not directly establishing the existence of the facts required to be proved, is admissible as making the facts in issue probable by reason of its connection with or in relation to them. It is evidence, at times regarded to be of higher probative value, that direct evidence which may be perjured or mistaken. Of circumstantial evidence, one judge had this to say;
“Circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is evidence of the surrounding circumstances where by careful examination is capable of proving a case with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial.”
Continues next week.Continues next week.
