R. v. Esta d/o Ikumboka, Crim. Sass. 170-D-67, 25/10/67, Georges C. J.

R. v. Esta d/o Ikumboka, Crim. Sass. 170-D-67, 25/10/67, Georges C. J.

Accused was charged with infanticide [P.C. s. 199] The child’s body had been buried for 10 days when first examined by a doctor, and decomposition had begun. A green cloth was tightly tied about its neck, and its lung were expanded; the doctor’s initial opinion was that it had been strangled. However, analysis of specimens of both lungs by a pathologist in Dar es Salaam found that the gas-spaces in the lungs were due to purification; the doctor then revised his opinion. Since it could not be determined whether the child had been born alive or not .The accused had told the doctor, during an examination of her in which he found that she was lactating and bore other signs of having recently delivered a child, that she had delivered a live child and had strangled it. Her husband was away, she said, and she was afraid of the consequences of having produced a child in his absence. However, when first questioned by the Village Executive Officer as to what had happened to her pregnancy, before the body was discovered, she had stated that it had been born dead. At her trial, she stated that she had at first thought that the child was alive, and that she had buried it only when she discovered it was dead; she dismissed the doctor’s account of his interview with her as a lie.

            Held: (1) Accepting that accused ’s statement t the doctor was as the doctor stated, she had a short time before given a conflicting account of the incident. Considering that she may well have been in a general state of confusion, and in the absence of direct medical evidence supporting either account, it would not be safe to convict her of infanticide. (2) However, she lived in a populated area, and could have gone to several people for help; she was, therefore guilty of concealing the birth of a child [P.C. s. 218]. Conviction accordingly; suspended sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment imposed.