Chipeta, J.: This matter was admitted to revision on it appearing to this court that the sentence imposed on the accused person was manifestly excessive.
The record reveals that accused person, a student in a secondary school was convicted of the offence of unlawful wounding c/s 228 (1) of the Penal Code. The facts reveal I that the accused
assaulted a fellow student in a classroom in unclear circumstances with a penknife and A caused the victim to sustain a cut wound 1.5cm long, 1.25cm wide and 1.5cm deep.
On conviction, the accused person was sentenced to pay a fine of shs.7,000/= or nine months imprisonment and to pay shs.3,000/= as compensation. B
This court has often held that a sentence must fit the crime and guilt as well as the circumstances of the offender. If a sentencing court is minded to impose a sentence of fine as an option to a custodial sentence, such court should take pains to inquire into the C financial means of the accused person, for if that is not done, a court might find itself imposing on an accused person a sentence of fine whose result would be to render the option of a fine illusory. (See Ally and Another v R., [l972] HCD n. 115; and R. v Sima, [1972] HCD n. 182), It has also been held that youthful first offenders should be D treated leniently (see R. v Juma s/o Rashidi, [l972] HCD n. 185), and that an accused person who is a student should likewise be treated with some measure of leniency (see R. v Aleni Mwamenze [l972] HCD n 226).
In the present case, the learned magistrate took into account the fact that the accused E person was a first offender. He, however, said that "a deterrent sentence" was called for "to be a lesson to the accused person and other people." I certainly agree that violence and indiscipline in schools must be discouraged. But in this case, that was not the only factor to be taken into account. In assessing a sentence, all relevant factors F must be taken into account. If that is not done, an appellate court or a superior court acting in revision would be entitled to interfere with such a sentence. (see Silvanus Leonard Nguruwe v Republic [l981] TLR 66).
In this case, and as pointed out above, the accused was a student in a secondary G school. He is aged 20 years, and he is a first offender. As a student, he could hardly be expected to have an income which could enable him to raise shs.10,000/= at a moment's notice! Besides, the injury which the victim sustained can hardly be said to have been serious. These were very strong mitigating circumstances to which the H learned trial magistrate did not address his mind. In this, with respect, he erred.
For these reasons, I am of the settled view that the sentence of fine imposed on the accused person by the trial court was so manifestly excessive as to have resulted in injustice. The same is accordingly hereby set aside, and substituted therefor is a I sentence of a fine of shs.1,000/= (one thousand) or one month imprisonment.
If the fine has been paid, the balance of shs.6,000/= (six thousand) shall be refunded to A the accused person forthwith. The order of compensation shall remain undisturbed.
Order accordingly.
B
________________