Arusha. The High Court, Manyara Sub-Registry, has acquitted Elia Daniel, who faced charges over the murder of a former Standard Six pupil at Ayatsea Primary School, Suzana Ginyabasi.
The verdict freeing the accused was delivered on Wednesday, April 8, 2026, by Judge Devotha Kamuzora, and a copy was posted on the court’s website.
After hearing evidence from both sides, the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused was charged with a single count of murder, contrary to Sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code, an offence alleged to have occurred on April 29, 2025, in Gidamara Village, Babati District, Manyara Region.
During the trial, the prosecution presented 10 witnesses and 16 exhibits.
It was alleged that on the day of the incident, the pupil left home in the morning for school but never returned.
The eighth witness, the deceased’s father, Mr Samweli Ginyabasi, said he began searching and was informed she was last seen near the school, but no one knew her whereabouts.
He said the matter was initially reported to local authorities and later at Galapo Police Station.
According to him and the sixth witness, Mkapa Ginyabasi, on May 1, 2025, a report was made, the community gathered, and a search began, during which the pupil’s body was allegedly found in a field.
After the body was discovered, police were informed by the second witness, Corporal Asha, accompanied by Sergeant Elias, who went to the crime scene, where they were told the accused had been detained by villagers on suspicion of involvement in the offence.
They went to the village office and later took the accused to Galapo Police Station.
The seventh witness said the deceased’s body was dressed in a school uniform: a white shirt and blue skirt, and near the body, 12 metres away, a male undergarment was found.
After the exhibits were collected, they were handed over to and taken to the Government Chemist Laboratory Authority (GCLA).
The first witness, Dr Christopher Malagashimba, a doctor who examined the body, said it had blood from the nose and ears, multiple bruises, and abnormal neck movement, indicating possible strangulation.
He further noted injuries extending from the vagina to the anus, indicating sexual abuse, and concluded the cause of death was oxygen deprivation to the brain due to hanging, with excessive bleeding from sustained injuries.
The ninth witness, Dr Joshua Dawson of Mrara Hospital, testified that he was asked to take a blood sample from the accused for DNA testing, which he handed to the seventh witness, a police officer, and it was sent to GCLA, Arusha Region.
The exhibits were handed to the fifth witness, who stated that GCLA Arusha does not conduct DNA analysis, so he transported them to GCLA, Dar es Salaam, for testing.
At the Dar es Salaam lab, he handed them to the third witness, Mr Boniface Emmanuel.
The third witness admitted receiving the exhibits for DNA testing, including a black undergarment reportedly worn by the deceased, a khaki tight-fitting garment also said to be worn by the deceased, a multicoloured tight-fitting garment found at the crime scene, vaginal swabs from the deceased, the blood sample from the accused, and the undergarment.
DNA test results were presented in court, showing a match between the accused’s blood sample and DNA from the deceased’s body and some crime scene exhibits.
The Defence
The accused denied causing the deceased’s death, except to admit that a blood sample had been taken from him, and denied that the male undergarment found at the crime scene was his.
He testified that at the time he lived elsewhere, herding cattle, and that he had been falsely charged.
The public prosecutor argued that although there were minor discrepancies in PW9’s testimony regarding who took the blood sample from the accused, there was no dispute that a sample had been taken.
Judge’s decision
However, despite the evidence, the court noted major flaws in how it was collected and handled, raising doubts about its legal validity.
Reading the verdict, Judge Kamuzora said the Human DNA Control Act sets specific conditions for the collection and handling of DNA samples, including who is authorised to collect them.
The court found major confusion in the prosecution’s evidence regarding who took the accused’s blood sample.
Although one doctor claimed he collected it, he later changed his statement, saying he only supervised the procedure carried out by another person whose legal qualifications were unverified.
As a result, the court stated the sample’s legality could not be properly confirmed, affecting the credibility of all DNA test results based on it.
Judge Kamuzora said even if the DNA evidence were valid, it still had gaps, as some key exhibits, such as the male undergarment alleged to belong to the accused, showed no DNA match with him.
He said in criminal law, expert evidence like DNA should not be relied on alone without supporting evidence, and in this case, no witness saw the incident, nor was there direct evidence linking the accused to the murder.
Moreover, it was unclear how the accused was connected to the incident until his arrest by villagers.
The court also considered the accused’s defence, who claimed he was detained without grounds and linked to the incident due to personal disputes with his employer while herding.
He stated that on the day of the incident, he was herding cattle elsewhere and was later summoned by his employer, taken to the village office, and then handed over to the police.
The court found these claims unchallenged by the prosecution, raising further doubts about his involvement.
Considering all these flaws, Judge Kamuzora concluded the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, as required by law.
“It is the prosecution’s duty to prove its case beyond any doubt. In this case, the evidence presented did not meet that standard,” he said in his verdict.
Consequently, the court ordered the accused’s immediate release unless held for other legal reasons.
