Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

HB130-10 - SINDISO TAPIWA MAKALIMA vs THE STATE

  • View Judgment By Categories
  • View Full Judgment

Procedural Law-viz criminal appeal re conviction and sentence.

Sentencing-viz rape.
Sentencing-viz sentencing approach re juvenile offenders.

Corroborative Evidence re: Uncorroborated Evidence iro Single Witness, Cautionary Rule and Religious Indoctrination

This is a criminal appeal against both the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Regional Magistrates Court sitting at Bulawayo on 18 July 2006.

The appellant was convicted of one count of rape…..,.

Aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant noted an appeal against both arguing that there was absolutely no evidence led on behalf of the State upon which a conviction could be founded.

The State has conceded that both the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. Counsel for the State submitted, in making the concession, that:

“The State called three witnesses, viz, Wilson John Makalima, Onmie Makalima and Nozipho Baloyi. The first two witnesses were recalcitrant witnesses. Nothing emerged from their testimony that implicated the appellant in the commission of the offence. The victim, who was aged 5 years at the time of her testimony, did not say anything that incriminated the accused. The Respondent concedes that at the time close of the State case no prima facie case had been established.”

Having gone through the record of proceedings and the submissions made by counsel for both parties we are of the view that the concession has been properly made. There was no basis whatsoever for the conviction of the appellant and no justification for the departure by the learned Regional Magistrate from the usual sentencing options in respect of juveniles.

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and in their place is substituted the order that the appellant be and is hereby found not guilty and acquitted.

Sentencing re: Approach iro Juvenile and Youthful Offenders, Juvenile Justice & Administration of Corporal Punishment

The appellant was sentenced to eight (8) years imprisonment of which three (3) years imprisonment was suspended for five (5) years on the usual conditions.

The appellant…., attacked the sentence on the basis that there was no discernable reason why the court a quo sentenced him as it did, when, at the time of the alleged offence, he was a juvenile of seventeen (17) years, and, as such, in his view, the sentence induced a sense of shock.

MATHONSI J:  This is a criminal appeal against both the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the Regional Magistrates Court, sitting at Bulawayo on 18 July 2006.  The Appellant was convicted of one count of rape and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment of which 3 years imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions.

Aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the Appellant noted an appeal against both arguing that there was absolutely no evidence led on behalf of the State upon which a conviction could be founded.  He further attacked the sentence on the basis that there was no discenable reason why the court a quo sentenced him as it did, when, at the time of the alleged offence, he was a juvenile of 17 years and as such, in his view, the sentence induced a sense of shock.

The state has conceded that both the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.  Mr Mabhaudi for the State submitted, in making the concession, that:

“The State called three witnesses, viz, Wilson John Makalima, Onmie Makalima and Nozipho Baloyi.  The first two witnesses were recalcitrant witnesses.  Nothing emerged from their testimony that implicated the appellant in the commission of the offence.  The victim who was aged 5 years at the time of her testimony did not say anything that incriminated the accused.  The Respondent concedes that at the time close of the state case no prima facie case had been established.”

 

Having gone through the record of proceedings and the submissions made by counsel for both parties we are of the view that the concession has been properly made.  There was no basis whatsoever for the conviction of the Appellant and no justification for the departure by the learned Regional Magistrate from the usual sentencing options in respect of juveniles.

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the conviction and sentence of the Appellant are set aside and in their place is substituted the order that the Appellant be and is hereby found not guilty and acquitted.

 

Mathonsi J.......................................................................

 

Kamocha J agrees.............................................................

 

James, Moyo-Majwabu and Nyoni appellant's legal practitioners

Criminal Division, Attorney General's Officer, respondent's legal practitioners
Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top