000297' he would not have known where the baby was abandoned if he was not involved in the commission of the crime. 53.Concerning the third ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Applicant that DW2, the wife of the Applicant and the mother of the deceased baby, was not a reliable witness as she contradicted her statements when questioned by the other witnesses concerning the whereabouts of the baby, first indicating that the baby slipped into the latrine and later, stating that the Applicant snatched the baby from her and threw the baby in the bush. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal noted that her second statement was subsequently found to be true and it considered it relevant as corroborating evidence. The Court of Appeal also indicated that the Applicant's conviction withstood the inconsistent testimony of DW2. 59. As regards the fourth and fifth grounds of appeal, the Court of Appeal also considered them in detail and decided that the procedural irregularities and omissions pointed out by the Applicant were justified under the Tanzanian laws and in the circumstances surrounding his case. 60. From the foregoing, this Court observes that the manner in which the Court of Appeal assessed the evidence reveals no apparent or manifest errors that occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Applicant. ln this regard, this Court notes, as the Court of Appeal did, that the discrepancies in the witnesses' testimony were minor and that the most important issues for determination were consistent in the testimonies of PW2, PW3, and PW4. Allthree witnesses narrated that the Applicant took them to the place where the baby was abandoned, whereas his wife only went part of the way before needing to have rest. This was substantiated by the posf morfem examination report of PW 1, which disclosed that the cause of the death was hypoglycaemia (lack of sugar in the blood) and hypothermia (lack of warmth) CCIA 16 Y'l^\*=-1 -,='' @-