R. v. Nyakaho Crim. Sass 95-M-70; 2/6/70; Saidi J.
The accused was charged with the murder of her father-in-law by slashing him to death with a panga. The deceased, an old man of 60 years entered the house of his son, the husband of the accused where the accused was sleeping convalescing from a T.B. attack. The accused was suddenly awakened to find the deceased lying between her legs, his trousers stripped down to his feet, trying to have sexual intercourse with her. Hen she refused to have sexual intercourse with him, he tried to throttle her to stop he from shouting for help, whereupon accused jumped out of bed picked up a panga any cut the deceased several times on the head and arms. The deceased died from those wounds. At the trial a submission of no case to answer was made.
Held (1) “There is no doubt whatsoever that the accused was in the circumstances entitled to defend her –self against the assault on her by the deceased. She was a weak woman who had been suffering from T.B. and was just recovering from the effect of this illness. She was lawfully resting in her own house; while in deep
Sleep she was awakened by the deceased, who had entered the house, locked the door which was then open, stripped his trousers, raised the bed-sheet the accused was covering with an started to lie on her. When challenged he tried to grab the accused’s throat to choke her. I agree with the second assessor that it was a very bad behaviour on the part of the deceased to try to sleep with his daughter-in-law. It is also clear that he misbehaved so grossly when he was a guest in his own son’s home where his own ill wife was being nursed. The accused exercised her right of self-defence when she was throttled by the deceased. If she did not do so, she would have been choked to death. Again, under the law, a woman is entitled to defend her chastity against a man who wants to have carnal knowledge of her forcibly. In paragraph 2512 ARCHBOLD, in his PLEADING, EVIDENCE AND PRAACTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES, 36th Edition, deals with “Killing in defence of person or property.” There he says “An accused would be entitled to an acquittal where the killing is justifiable as for example …. Where a woman kills a man who attempts to ravish her; 1 Hale 485; 1 Hawk. 7th ed., c. 28, s. 21.” (2) “So it would appear that even in cases where a woman feels that a man wants to rape hr she is by law entitled to resist the rape and if while so resisting she inflicts fatal injuries on the man she would be entitled to an acquittal as she would then be defending her chastity. In the present case, the accused has both the rights, that is, the right to defend her chastity and also the right to defend her life when the deceased tried to throttle her in a bid to overcome her and be able to ravish her.” (3) Accused acquitted.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.