It
is common cause that the accused's service pistol was recovered from him on the
same day of the shooting, was conveyed to Ballistics in Harare together with
the fragment extracted from the deceased's head for examination.
A
ballistic report was compiled.
The
ballistic report, exhibit 6, was produced by consent. It had been compiled by
Inspector F. ...
It
is common cause that the accused's service pistol was recovered from him on the
same day of the shooting, was conveyed to Ballistics in Harare together with
the fragment extracted from the deceased's head for examination.
A
ballistic report was compiled.
The
ballistic report, exhibit 6, was produced by consent. It had been compiled by
Inspector F. Cole, then of ZRP C.I.D Forensic Ballistics in Harare. Inspector
F. Cole had examined the weapon (exhibit 7) and the bullet fragment (exhibit
9) and drew the following conclusion:
“Examination
of weapon (a) (exhibit 7) showed that it was functional. Examination of
the barrel and chamber of weapon (a) were found to contain firearms residue,
indicating that weapon (a) had been fired.
Examination of exhibit (b) showed that it is a bullet fragment. I am
unable to make a comparison with exhibit (b) due to no characteristics. Weapon
(a) was manufactured after the year 1900.”
Clearly
therefore the ballistic report was inconclusive.
While
the finding of Inspector F. Cole was that the item recovered from the
deceased's skull was of bullet fragment, he failed to link that bullet
fragment to exhibit 7, the accused's weapon. The reason for that was
that it lacked characteristics for comparison to be made.
We
assume it was because of these difficulties that the State found it necessary
to call Inspector Admire Mutizwa, also of CID Ballistics in Harare. He is the
holder of a Bachelor of Science (Honours) Degree in Physics obtained from the
University of Zimbabwe. He also undertook a two (2) year police training course
specializing in the identification of firearms cartridges and anything to do
with explosives.
While
Inspector Mutizwa is not the author of the ballistic report, exhibit 6,
the defence did not challenge the decision to call him to come and interpret
the report. Be that as it may, he told the court that he was part of the team
that conducted the forensic examination of exhibits 7 and 9.
According
to this witness, the tests carried out, which included dissecting a 9mm bullet
head (exhibit 8), led them to the conclusion that the bullet fragment
extracted from the deceased's head (exhibit 9) was in fact a fragment of
a 9mm bullet head. He conceded, however, that this only means that the fragment
may have emanated from a bullet fired from any 9mm weapon. Therefore, this only
means the accused falls within the group of those who were in possession of a
9mm weapon on that fateful day who may have fired in at the time resulting in a
fragment finding its way to the deceased's head.
The
ballistic evidence was strongly challenged by the defence which brought its own
ballistic expert, Retired Chief Inspector Makanda, who testified that the
fragment (exhibit 9) contained enough copper with lead in it to such an
extent that the ballistic experts should have managed to positively link it
with exhibit 7 (the weapon) if at all it had been fired from that weapon. He
took the view that because the copper jacket of a bullet leaves traceable marks
in the barrel these would enable a ballistic expert using a microscope to
establish if it had or had not been fired from a particular gun. It was Retired
Chief Inspector Makanda's evidence that he could not tell whether exhibit 9 was
a bullet fragment or not, but, generally, bullets are made in such a way that
they do not disintegrate or fragment on impact. His view was that depending on
the surface that it collides with a bullet that has been fired would ordinarily
fall down harmlessly or be found squashed on that surface, especially if the
surface is flat. Asked if a bullet would not fragment in hitting a hard surface
Retired Chief Inspector Makanda maintained that bullets are not made to
fragment but would perhaps do so if that bullet is faulty. His view was that
while a bullet can ricochet, it does so as a complete whole and not as
fragments.
Retired Chief Inspector Makanda's biggest
problem is that he did not examine the exhibits, he did not have a microscope,
an equipment he last used while he was based at ballistics in Harare and for
all that it is worth his evidence was generalized. While he is clearly an
expert in that field having been trained in armoury by the army for three (3)
years before joining ZRP where he spent 26 successful years, he was
incapacitated by his inability to expertly examine the exhibits using proper
examination tools. In the end his evidence was reduced to concessions that
using the naked eye he could not deny that exhibit 9 was a bullet
fragment and he could not contradict Inspector Mutizwa's conclusion that it was
a bullet fragment.
