Criminal
Trial
MOYO
J: The
accused person is charged with the offence of murder. It being
alleged that on 25 March 2012 he assaulted the deceased Jacob
Matereke with a log resulting in deceased dying on 3 April 2012 from
the injuries sustained in the assault.
The
accused person pleaded not guilty to this charge but instead offered
a limited plea to a charge of culpable homicide. The state accepted
this limited plea and the parties drew exhibit number 1 being a
statement of agreed facts. Its material aspects read as follows:
1.
Munyaradzi Matuke (hereinafter called the accused person) was aged 20
years at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. He
resided at Lot 1 Induna Farm Lalapanzi in the Midlands Province.
2.
Jacob Matereke (hereinafter called the deceased person) was 49 years
at the time of his death. He resided at the same farm with accused.
3.
On the 25th
day of March 2012 and at about 0500 hours, the deceased went into
accused's room at the farm and pulled away the blanket from the
accused who was still sleeping. The deceased kicked the accused once
with booted feet and got restrained by people who were present in the
room.
4.
The accused person then got up and went to the shops where he spent
the whole day there and returned around 1900 hours.
5.
The accused indicated that he wanted to go to the fields and guard
against pigs, but the deceased indicated that he was to attend to the
fields himself. This degenerated into an argument as both parties
insisted that they wanted to go to the fields.
6.
The deceased who was holding a matchete, struck the accused once on
the face with a clenched fist.
7.
Accused then picked up a log that was nearby and struck deceased once
on the forehead and he fell unconsciously.
8.
The deceased was ferried to Gweru General Hospital where he was later
transferred to Parirenyatwa Hospital where he passed away on 3 April
2012.
9.
On the 5th
of April 2012, Dr Gabriel Aguero examined the remains of the deceased
and concluded that the cause of death was:
(i)
Severe head injury due to assault.
10.
The accused person accepts the contents of the post mortem report.
The accused denies having the requisite intention in the form of
Dolus Directus, or Dolus Eventualis to kill the deceased but
acknowledges that, through his conduct aforesaid, he was negligent in
causing the deceased's death.
11.
The state concedes to the fact that the accused was negligent in the
way he conducted himself in the manner he assaulted the deceased.
The state acknowledges that the accused was negligent resulting in
the death of the deceased and concedes to accused's plea of
culpable homicide.
The
post mortem report was tendered and marked Exhibit 2; it gives the
cause of death as severe head injury due to assault.
The
log that was allegedly used in the commission of the offence was
tendered and marked Exhibit 3.
The
court accordingly from the evidence before it, found the accused
person not guilty of murder but nonetheless proceeds to convict the
accused person of the offence of culpable homicide.
Sentence
The
accused person stands convicted of the offence of culpable homicide.
He is a first offender. He was aged 20 years at the material time
and is currently 23 years old, he is married with a child, he did not
waste the court's time, he pleaded guilty, a plea of guilty has the
aspect of remorsefulness attached to it.
The
deceased was a nuisance in this case, first provoking accused in the
morning and again later in the evening when he decided to fight
deceased over who should go to the fields yet deceased had picked
that chore first.
Deceased
was the aggressor not once but twice on that day.
Accused
however, should have restrained himself than to act in the manner
that he did, he should have been more careful in dealing with the
deceased although his youthfulness would count in his favour, a life
was lost unnecessarily, deceased had just clapped him when he
resorted to using the log.
Accused
could have managed the situation in a more reasonable manner.
These
courts frown at the loss of life through violence, and deceased's
conduct was despicable on the day in question. He however did not
deserve to be killed in the manner accused did.
The
accused person is accordingly sentenced to 7 years imprisonment of
which 2 years imprisonment is suspended for 5 years on condition the
accused person does not within that period commit an offence of which
violence is an element whereupon conviction he shall be sentenced to
imprisonment without the option of a fine.
National
Prosecuting Authority,
State's legal practitioners
Mutatu
and Associates,
accused's legal practitioners
