The decision followed failure to summon crucial witnesses, and inconsistencies regarding the appellant’s arrest and the child’s referral to hospital
Arusha. The Court of Appeal has freed a father previously sentenced to life imprisonment for ‘sodomising’ his four-year-old son.
The decision followed the court’s finding of legal irregularities, including serious shortcomings in prosecution evidence, failure to summon crucial witnesses, and inconsistencies regarding the appellant’s arrest and the child’s referral to hospital.
The court said that after reviewing the record and submissions from both sides, it could not see how the offence had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and agreed the appellant’s defence had not been properly considered.
The ruling freeing the father was delivered on Monday, March 2, 2026, by a panel of three justices: Zephrine Galeba, Dr Benhajj Masoud, and Dr Eliezer Feleshi, with a copy of the judgment uploaded to the Judiciary website.
The father, a resident of Mlua Village, Kondoa District, Dodoma Region, had been accused of committing the offence on unspecified dates in 2021, contrary to Section 154(1) of the Penal Code.
It was alleged that he was living with the child after separating from his wife and subjected him to physical abuse, including beatings and occasional hand burns.
On December 7, 2021, during a village meeting, residents discussed alleged acts of cruelty, including sodomy.
The appeal arose from the High Court of Tanzania at Dodoma, ruling dated June 14, 2024, in Criminal Appeal No. 40/2023.
Grounds of appeal
The father was initially sentenced by the Kondoa District Court. He was now making his second appeal, after the first appellate court upheld the conviction.
Prosecution called five witnesses and tendered one exhibit. Evidence claimed the appellant lived in Mlua Village and subjected the child to severe physical abuse, including beatings and occasional hand burns.
On an unspecified date, a person grazing cattle near the appellant’s residence reportedly heard the child crying for help and reported the matter to the third prosecution witness.
It was further alleged that on December 7, 2021, during a village assembly, residents discussed the appellant’s acts of cruelty, including sodomy, and that on December 2, 2021, according to the first witness, he heard the child crying inside the house.
The third witness ordered village militia to arrest the appellant. He and the child were taken to his office, and the child was examined.
The fourth witness stated he found loosened anal muscles, concluding abuse had occurred. The child stated his father had committed the act.
Defence
The appellant denied the offence, claiming he was arrested by local militia while working on his farm after allegations by his uncle that he had slaughtered a donkey and a cow.
He alleged he was assaulted during the arrest and claimed the same people who assaulted him forcibly sodomised him and his son.
The trial court, satisfied the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Appeal
The appellant argued that the first appellate court erred by upholding a conviction not proved beyond reasonable doubt, by acting on a defective charge sheet failing to specify the date, and by disregarding his defence.
The respondent (the Republic) supported the appeal. It submitted that a charge sheet must correspond with evidence and, if inconsistent, may be amended under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).
Evidence indicated the alleged offence occurred on December 21, 2021. The respondent argued that failure to amend the charge caused uncertainty, affecting the appellant’s defence.
The respondent also highlighted that the prosecution did not summon arresting witnesses and failed to challenge the defence alleging sodomy during assault, leaving doubts unresolved.
Justices’ decision
Justice Feleshi said the charge sheet was fatally defective for failing to specify the date and that the prosecution had serious shortcomings, including failure to call key witnesses and inconsistencies about the arrest and hospital referral.
“The lower courts did not properly address these deficiencies. Any doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused,” he said, adding that the defence had not been given proper weight.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the life sentence, and ordered the father’s release unless he was lawfully held for another reason.
