The accused, a young man of 18 years, took a shotgun belonging to his employer, in his absence, and went to hunt some “dik-dik”. While returning home, he met the
deceased, who was grazing cattle together with his niece, a child of seven years. The accused and the deceased were on friendly terms and had never been known to quarrel. Their meeting was initially an amicable one. The evidence as to what happened subsequent is contradictory. According to the niece of the deceased, the accused greeted the deceased, then aimed the gun at him and fired it. The bullet struck the deceased and killed him. The niece rushed away to get assistance, whole the accused remained behind to tend to the victim. Before the niece left, however, she heard the accused say “that he had not meant to strike the deceased and that he was only king”. The accused gave a different version of the events. He said that “he was showing the deceased that he could aim the gun and that when he was replacing the gun on his back it accidentally fired”. He demonstrated his actions to the court, which remarked that “his manner in carrying the gun and returning it to that position was extremely awkward and dangerous”. The owner of the gun confirmed that its trigger was sensitive and could be set off with only a little force. The accused was charged with murder.
Held: The accused was found not guilty of any offence. The court stated: “If the accused aimed at the deceased and pulled the trigger jokingly, without
taking precautions to ascertain whether the gun was loaded or not, then he would be guilty of manslaughter, but if, on the other hand, the gun fired while he was replacing it as suggested by the accused then a question of misadventure would be involved, no criminal liability attaching to the accused”. The court found agreeing with the assessors, that the gun went off while the accused was replacing it on his shoulder, as he described; and so the event was accidental. The court said that since the niece was a child of tender years, her evidence required corroboration under s. 152(3), Criminal Procedure Code, before accused could be convicted on it and that such corroboration was not available.
