One of the eye witnesses found Solomon lying dead in the sentry box and saw Justus heading towards the nearby police station. Photo/Courtesy
In August 2017, a security guard, a one Administrative Police Constable, Justus, was charged with the offence of murder. The particulars of the offence were that on August 2, 2017 he murdered his colleague, Solomon. The prosecution presented 12 witnesses to prove its case.
The summary of the evidence was that the two individuals were deployed to guard the sub-county headquarters and were, each, issued a gun and ammunition.
The details of the guns and ammunition were recorded in the arms movement record book, including the serial number of the guns. Eyewitness heard Solomon ask Justus why he was pointing his gun at him shortly before the witnesses heard several gunshots.
One of the eyewitnesses found Solomon lying dead in the sentry box and saw Justus heading towards the nearby police station.
The supervisor of the guards was notified shortly after the incidence and a police officer was immediately assigned to investigate the case. The police officer interviewed the eyewitnesses, recovered the suspected killer gun and spent and unspent cartridges and took photographs of the scene.
The body of the deceased was taken to the mortuary for a forensic post-mortem examination while the gun and cartridges were subjected to ballistic analysis.
Justus denied shooting Solomon and told court that he was not really sure what happened. He further told court that Solomon was seducing his wife and on the day in question, Solomon provoked him by threatening to elope with his wife and this really got him angry. He further said he heard one of the guards cock his gun and then he suddenly heard a gunshot.
To the lawyer representing Justus, none of the witnesses saw Justus actually shoot Solomon and not all the guns issued out to the other guards that evening were subjected to ballistic examinations. It was only the gun of the accused that was examined.
The lawyer also submitted that there was a cover-up and suggested that it was one of the other guards who opened fire on the accused and the deceased and this explained the presence of bullet holes in the interior and exterior of the sentry box walls.
However, to court the statement of the accused when surrendering to the police was curious. His statement suggested that the deceased had shot himself. He, at the same time, admitted that his gun discharged without suggesting that it was in someone else’s hands.
Court observed that if indeed the gun was in the hands of the deceased, it would have been impossible for him to fire many bullets in his own body. At the post-mortem examination eight gunshot entry wounds were identified.
The lawyers of the accused put up a theory that someone else, other that the accused, could have shot the deceased. To court this was a mere suggestion, which suggestion was neither supported by any evidence nor created any reasonable doubt as to who actually shot and killed the deceased.
To court the accused had his gun at all times in his own hands. The accused also put up a defence of provocation on the basis that the deceased, a senior officer, had started an illicit affair with his wife. To add salt to injury, the deceased borrowed some money from the accused and had refused to return it.
The accused, according to the evidence adduced in court, reacted by threatening to shoot the deceased, but he only faintly remembered what happened next except that his gun fired once and he then heard the firing of other shots.
According to the accused he may have pointed his gun at the deceased but he had no intentions of harming him. According to his lawyers, the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had a motive to kill as well as a guilty mind. To court the death and cause of death was not in dispute.
The post-mortem report stated that the deceased succumbed to massive blood loss resulting from multiple gunshot injuries. This evidence was not challenged nor contradicted. Court was also in no doubt that the accused fired the shots that killed the deceased. In his own testimony, the accused recalled his gun discharging and he heard a gunshot.
Lawyers for the accused person raised the issue of gaps in the chain of custody. Court was furnished with the arms movement register which clearly indicated the gun issued to the suspect and it was the same gun surrendered at the police station.
A police officer confirmed the accused came to the police station shortly after gunshots were heard and handed over his gun. It was the same gun issued by the armoury. Court noted that there was an error in the writing of the last digit of the serial number of the gun in one of the records.
Court was of the opinion that the error was not fundamental and therefore not fatal to the case, given the recorded evidence in the armoury and that adduced by the ballistics expert were not contradictory. The evidence of the ballistics expert was entirely uncontroverted; the expert concluded that from the forensic microscopic examination all the spent cartridges recovered from the scene of incidence were fired from one rifle and that rifle was that which was issued to the accused.
As to whether the accused had malice aforethought when he discharged his gun, it was clear from his evidence that he not only had the opportunity but also the motive to kill his senior colleague. It was his evidence that the deceased was allegedly having an illicit affair with his wife and on the night in question provoked him and that he got angry.
The accused had a semi-automatic rifle that was capable of firing multiple rounds and he fired no less than eight shots all aimed at the deceased. Court was satisfied that the accused, in his anger, shot the deceased with many rounds of ammunition. This was not an accident or a mistake. The accused had worked as an Administrative Police Officer for 14 years since 2003.
He had handled guns regularly. When he discharged his gun that evening he knew exactly what he was doing and the harm he would cause. Court visited the scene of incident and was taken through the movements of the accused and the deceased.
Court, after visiting the scene, had no difficulty in comprehending that the accused was able to shoot at the deceased as the sentry box had an opening in front and there were lamp posts next to it making the deceased an easy target.
Ultimately court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, found the accused guilty of murder.
Guilty
Beyond reasonable doubt. Court visited the scene of incidence and was taken through the movements of the accused and the deceased.
Court, after visiting the scene, had no difficulty in comprehending that the accused was able to shoot at the deceased as the Sentry Box had an opening in front and there were lamp posts next to it making the deceased an easy target. Ultimately court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, found the accused guilty of murder.
