Was the General’s death murder or manslaughter?

What you need to know:

  • The main issue of contention was whether the woman intended to kill the General, thus making it a case of murder or whether the death was not intended or planned.

A woman admitted to hitting a General twice on the head with a metallic bar on one November 10. The General died on spot as a result of his injuries. The woman told court she acted in self-defence as the general had threatened to shoot her.
This allegation was not corroborated by any other witness, including the school girl who was supposedly present when the General and the woman were engaged in a fight. The school girl called the woman aunt. A loaded pistol was, however, recovered from the General’s car close by which to the presiding judge lend credence to the woman’s fear for her life.
To the judge the question was whether or not the force used to hit the General was justified. The school girl told court even under rigorous cross-examination that the General was hit on the head with an iron bar as he tried to turn and he fell down. She further told court that she tried to restrain her aunt but she over-powered her and hit the General again on the head.
The pathologist’s evidence showed that the deceased had three injuries on the right side of the head. To court these injuries supported the account that General sustained them as he turned to face his attacker, the woman. One of the injuries was a fractured temporal bone and to the judge this must have been the blow that the General took as he turned.

Accuracy of events
The judge was also satisfied with the testimony of the woman as it was given in a remarkably forthright manner which represented a fairly accurate account of the events of that fateful day. The judge, however, did not see any justification for the amount of force used in the horrendous attack.
The woman testified that the General had taken beer and waragi from about mid-day the previous day and by the time the fight erupted the he was drunk. The question to court was, then, how much threat a visibly drunken person would have posed to warrant a blow to part of the body as delicate as the head. To court the force that the woman used in attacking the General was excessive and unjustifiable in the circumstances.

The main issue of contention was whether the woman intended to kill the General, thus making it a case of murder or whether the death was not intended or planned. Courts use the following to establish whether there was intention to cause death;
i. Whether the weapon used was lethal or not and the manner in which the weapon was used, that is, whether used repeatedly or not and the number of injuries inflicted.
ii. Whether or not a vulnerable part of the body was targeted.
iii. The conduct of the accused person before, during and after the act.

In this particular case it was proved to the court’s satisfaction that the weapon with which the woman hit the General’s head was a hallow metallic bar which measured about one metre and had blunt edges. Court was of the view that the bar was capable of inflicting fatal injuries depending on the manner it was used and the part of the body that was targeted. Courts have time and again held that the head is a vulnerable part of the body and if targeted by someone, that then imputes malicious intent. The judge’s conclusion was that a potentially lethal metallic bar was applied to a venerable part of the General’s body raising the inference of possible malicious intent on part of the woman.

The conclusion to follow