Arusha. The High Court of Tanzania, Manyara Circuit, has acquitted the former chairman of Berme A sub-village in Babati District, Manyara Region, Mr John Mulki, of charges relating to the murder of Petro Julian.
The court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The alleged incident occurred on March 22, 2019. The deceased and his companion, Mr Prosper Josephat, were accused of stealing two cattle-drawn hoes.
Prosecutors alleged that Mr Mulki, together with other villagers, took the pair from their home to a nearby location, bound their hands behind their backs with ropes, and interrogated them about the missing tools.
During this confrontation, the two were allegedly beaten with sticks and clubs.
Following the incident, Mr Mulki and others reportedly fled the scene. He was later arrested and formally charged on June 21, 2025.
Judge Devotha Kamuzora delivered the verdict on Friday, March 2026, with a copy of the ruling published on the court’s website.
In her judgment, she emphasised that to secure a murder conviction, the prosecution must establish three elements: that the deceased died an unnatural death; that the accused caused that death; and that the act was committed with malice or intent.
Medical evidence
On the first point, the court accepted the medical evidence provided by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, showing that externally, the deceased had injuries on his right arm, left leg, and back.
Internally, the gallbladder had ruptured, causing bile to spill into the abdominal cavity.
The doctor concluded that the cause of death was injuries inflicted by a blunt object, which could have damaged internal organs. The court agreed that this demonstrated an unnatural death.
However, after reviewing the full record, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that Mr Mulki personally assaulted the deceased or caused his death.
Several prosecution witnesses gave conflicting accounts regarding Mr Mulki’s presence and role.
Some admitted they did not see him hitting the deceased and noted that many others at the scene were armed with sticks.
Judge Kamuzora highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies, stating it was impossible to determine with certainty who struck Petro.
Additionally, some key witnesses with direct knowledge, including Mr Prosper Josephat, were not called to testify.
The court also questioned why other individuals reportedly holding sticks were neither charged nor summoned, despite being identified during the trial.
Given these gaps, the court found that the crucial link between Mr Mulki and the deceased’s death had not been established. Consequently, Mr Mulki was found not guilty and ordered to be released.
“Considering the evidence before it, this court is not satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proven the charge of murder against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt,” said Judge Kamuzora.
Alleged circumstances of the murder
Prosecutors alleged that the deceased and Prosper Josephat were accused of stealing two cattle-drawn hoes belonging to residents.
During the trial, the prosecution presented seven witnesses and one exhibit, while the accused testified in his own defence.
The first prosecution witness, Ms Gabriela Dionis, the mother of the deceased, testified that she was awakened by her daughter on the night of the incident after hearing noises outside.
She said that, upon stepping outside, she saw her son and Prosper with their hands tied and being beaten.
She claimed she recognised Mr Mulki striking the pair with a stick, accusing them of theft, aided by moonlight that allowed her to identify those present.
Ms Dionis named several others at the scene, including Yusuph, Raphael, Karoli, and Deeme, and said that despite her calls for help, no one intervened.
She added that the youths were transported first to Berme C and then to Berme B in search of the missing hoes.
At Berme B, the deceased’s condition deteriorated. Petro reportedly said one hoe had been sold to a man named Cheusi, though it belonged to their household.
Ms Dionis stated that Mr Mulki accompanied the deceased to Cheusi’s home before arranging for him to be taken back home, critically injured, on a motorcycle. The deceased later died at Dareda Mission Hospital while receiving treatment.
Other prosecution witnesses offered contradictory accounts. Some confirmed Mr Mulki’s presence but denied witnessing him assaulting the deceased, noting that many people at the scene were armed with sticks.
Medical evidence confirmed an unnatural death, supported by testimonies suggesting the deceased had been assaulted, allegedly by the accused, who admitted the deceased had been attacked in his testimony.
A resident of Berme A, Lawe Akonay, testified that he arrived at the scene with two others to find a large crowd, identifying some individuals, including Yusuph Magesho, Paulo Theofil, Karoli, Prosper, Petro Julian, and John Francis.
He stated that he was told Petro and Prosper were accused of stealing a hoe.
Mr Prosper claimed he had sold one hoe to a man named William, who had in turn sold it to someone in Berme C.
Mr Akonay said the incident occurred at night, and he did not witness anyone assault the deceased, though others were carrying sticks.
Another witness, Mr Faustin Nicodemus of Berme B, testified that he heard cries for help and, upon going outside, saw a crowd including Mr Mulki, saying, however, he did not witness the accused striking the deceased.
A motorcycle taxi driver from Berme B, Mr Paulo Josephat, said he received a call from Mr Mulki to go to Berme B, where he found Petro and Prosper tied up and Petro in poor physical condition.
He claimed Mr Mulki freed Petro, placed him on the motorcycle, and travelled with him to Cheusi’s home in search of the stolen hoes.
Upon failing to locate them, Petro’s condition worsened, and Mr Mulki instructed that he be taken home.
He said that during the journey, the deceased complained about injuries he alleged were inflicted by Mr Mulki, and upon arrival, Mr Petro was handed to his mother and sister.
Retired police officer Dongoye Chiza, who investigated the case, testified that attempts to locate the accused and the alleged owners of the hoes, Mr Yusuph Mgesho and Mr Karoli Humay, were initially unsuccessful.
He noted that Mr Mulki had wrongly accused the deceased and Prosper without reporting the matter to the police, and there was no official police report of the alleged theft.
Another retired officer, Mr Julius Barongo, who later handled the investigation, confirmed that Mr Mulki was arrested on June 21, 2025, and that the case file was handed over to him for further action.
The Defence
In his defence, Mr Mulki denied the allegations, admitting only that he was a local leader.
He said that on the night of the incident, around 8 pm, he was at home when he heard noises and saw a large crowd surrounding Petro and Prosper.
He claimed they were being beaten and that he saw Mr Yusuph Lucas, Mr Karoli Humali, Mr Marco John, and Mr Bilauri Nada at the scene.
Mr Mulki said he suggested verifying the ownership of the hoes, as one was allegedly with Cheusi.
He accompanied the pair with Paulo Josephat to Cheusi’s home and, finding the hoe was not theirs, returned the youths home. He also gave Petro’s mother Sh30,000 to facilitate medical care.
Mr Mulki maintained that he remained in the village, attending to his farms in Dareda Ward, Berme village, and in Gendagi and Dilma within Hanang District.
He denied fleeing the village, insisting he only intervened to protect the deceased from further assault and ensured he reached home safely.
He attended the funeral as a community member, not as a fugitive, and denied ever attacking Petro.
Verdict summary
After considering all the evidence, Judge Kamuzora concluded that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Mulki caused Petro’s death.
Witness inconsistencies, absence of key testimonies, and unclarified actions of others at the scene weakened the prosecution’s case. Mr Mulki was acquitted and immediately released.
“The prosecution has failed to link the accused to the death of the deceased conclusively,” noted the court.
The ruling underscores the importance of precise and thorough evidence collection in criminal cases, particularly where multiple individuals are involved in an incident.
