Corroborative Evidence re: Admissions, Unchallenged Evidence, Right to Examine Witnesses & Audi Alteram Partem Rule

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]....,.

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

Physical Evidence re: Approach

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4;

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence, Causation and Inferential Reasoning re: Key Witness, Eyewitness & Res Gestae

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Findings of Fact re: Witness Testimony, Candidness with the Court and Deceptive or Misleading Evidence

Pamela Ferembu's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness....,. She generally was viewed as an honest witness....,.

Generally, we did not hold the accused as a candid witness.

Corroborative Evidence re: Approach and Principle that Lies Told By Accused Amount to Corroboration of State Witnesses

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Defence of Diminished Mental Responsibility or Diminished Capacity re: Substance Use, Intoxication and Insanity

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Tafadzwa Mandeya is the mother of the accused.

Her evidence was also on common cause aspects and it was formerly admitted.

Her son confronted his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, over land boundary and the two did not agree culminating in the accused arming himself with a wooden handle. The accused used this handle to assault the deceased persons upon failing to apprehend his uncle.

Jeremiah Dekaurendo's evidence was basically a confirmation of his confrontation by the accused who armed himself and threatened to kill him. When the witness hid, the accused then targeted the two deceased who were at the road.

The witness's evidence was not contentious and it was admitted.

Also admitted was the evidence of Maud Dekaurendo, the grandmother and mother of the accused and Jeremiah Dekaurendo respectively. Her evidence essentially confirmed Jeremiah Dekaurendo's account on the altercation which ended up with the demise of the deceased.

The accused's father, John Dekaurendo, also confirmed the issue of bad blood between himself and his brother. He learnt, on the day in question, that, the accused, his son, struck the deceased after having a misunderstanding with his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo.

The evidence of the other witnesses, police details, and post office official was on common cause aspects, hence, it was also formerly admitted.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence was essentially, that, on the day in question he had an altercation over land dispute with his uncle for about 25 minutes. His uncle had come to his mother's place and the accused was not amused by this visit as he was not sure of his uncle Jeremiah Dekaurendo's intentions.

When his uncle resisted his orders to vacate the grandmother's homestead, the accused then armed himself with an axe handle and threatened to attack.

Upon pursuing and failing to get his uncle, the accused came across the two now deceased and he assaulted them out of anger.

On another breadth, the accused's statement was that he did not know what happened - this is despite him giving an account of events of the day in question.

On being asked to explain how he got details of how he assaulted the deceased, he explained that his parents narrated to him what had happened.

Absurdly, his parents did not witness the altercation and the actual physical attack of the deceased.

This means the accused narrated events according to his own observations and participation.

When he sought to portray that he did not know what happened he exposed himself as not being genuine with the court.

The accused saw the deceased persons passing by. The woman and baby did not in any manner resemble his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, such that, there is no basis for assaulting thinking he was striking his uncle.

Findings of Fact re: Witness Testimony, Candidness with the Court and Deceptive or Misleading Evidence

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Tafadzwa Mandeya is the mother of the accused.

Her evidence was also on common cause aspects and it was formerly admitted.

Her son confronted his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, over land boundary and the two did not agree culminating in the accused arming himself with a wooden handle. The accused used this handle to assault the deceased persons upon failing to apprehend his uncle.

Jeremiah Dekaurendo's evidence was basically a confirmation of his confrontation by the accused who armed himself and threatened to kill him. When the witness hid, the accused then targeted the two deceased who were at the road.

The witness's evidence was not contentious and it was admitted.

Also admitted was the evidence of Maud Dekaurendo, the grandmother and mother of the accused and Jeremiah Dekaurendo respectively. Her evidence essentially confirmed Jeremiah Dekaurendo's account on the altercation which ended up with the demise of the deceased.

The accused's father, John Dekaurendo, also confirmed the issue of bad blood between himself and his brother. He learnt, on the day in question, that, the accused, his son, struck the deceased after having a misunderstanding with his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo.

The evidence of the other witnesses, police details, and post office official was on common cause aspects, hence, it was also formerly admitted.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence was essentially, that, on the day in question he had an altercation over land dispute with his uncle for about 25 minutes. His uncle had come to his mother's place and the accused was not amused by this visit as he was not sure of his uncle Jeremiah Dekaurendo's intentions.

When his uncle resisted his orders to vacate the grandmother's homestead, the accused then armed himself with an axe handle and threatened to attack.

Upon pursuing and failing to get his uncle, the accused came across the two now deceased and he assaulted them out of anger.

On another breadth, the accused's statement was that he did not know what happened - this is despite him giving an account of events of the day in question.

On being asked to explain how he got details of how he assaulted the deceased, he explained that his parents narrated to him what had happened.

Absurdly, his parents did not witness the altercation and the actual physical attack of the deceased.

This means the accused narrated events according to his own observations and participation.

When he sought to portray that he did not know what happened he exposed himself as not being genuine with the court.

Defence of Diminished Mental Responsibility or Diminished Capacity re: Provocation iro Approach and Self-Control

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Tafadzwa Mandeya is the mother of the accused.

Her evidence was also on common cause aspects and it was formerly admitted.

Her son confronted his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, over land boundary and the two did not agree culminating in the accused arming himself with a wooden handle. The accused used this handle to assault the deceased persons upon failing to apprehend his uncle.

Jeremiah Dekaurendo's evidence was basically a confirmation of his confrontation by the accused who armed himself and threatened to kill him. When the witness hid, the accused then targeted the two deceased who were at the road.

The witness's evidence was not contentious and it was admitted.

Also admitted was the evidence of Maud Dekaurendo, the grandmother and mother of the accused and Jeremiah Dekaurendo respectively. Her evidence essentially confirmed Jeremiah Dekaurendo's account on the altercation which ended up with the demise of the deceased.

The accused's father, John Dekaurendo, also confirmed the issue of bad blood between himself and his brother. He learnt, on the day in question, that, the accused, his son, struck the deceased after having a misunderstanding with his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo.

The evidence of the other witnesses, police details, and post office official was on common cause aspects, hence, it was also formerly admitted.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence was essentially, that, on the day in question he had an altercation over land dispute with his uncle for about 25 minutes. His uncle had come to his mother's place and the accused was not amused by this visit as he was not sure of his uncle Jeremiah Dekaurendo's intentions.

When his uncle resisted his orders to vacate the grandmother's homestead, the accused then armed himself with an axe handle and threatened to attack.

Upon pursuing and failing to get his uncle, the accused came across the two now deceased and he assaulted them out of anger.

On another breadth, the accused's statement was that he did not know what happened - this is despite him giving an account of events of the day in question.

On being asked to explain how he got details of how he assaulted the deceased, he explained that his parents narrated to him what had happened.

Absurdly, his parents did not witness the altercation and the actual physical attack of the deceased.

This means the accused narrated events according to his own observations and participation.

When he sought to portray that he did not know what happened he exposed himself as not being genuine with the court.

The accused saw the deceased persons passing by. The woman and baby did not in any manner resemble his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, such that, there is no basis for assaulting thinking he was striking his uncle.

The accused also came up with another explanation of being angry, and, that, with his emotions having been triggered by his uncle thus leading him to act in a fit of rage.

The accused could, however, not place before the court any utterances or actions by the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, which could have occasioned extensive provocation leading to momentary loss of self-control.

The thinly veiled reliance on the defence of provocation cannot be sustained in the circumstances for the obvious reason the requirement cannot be met.

Section 239 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Criminal Law Code) recognises provocation as a partial defence to murder charges in circumstances where provocation is found to exist in such a manner as to negate intention thus reducing liability to culpable homicide.

The accused, in this case, saw his uncle at his mother's house and he sought to take it upon himself to chase him away, but, the verbal attack did not cause Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave.

The accused had time to consider going to his father's home from where he brought an axe handle with which he threatened the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who then ran away.

There is no evidence to show, that, the accused acted on the spur of the moment and in a fit of rage when he struck the deceased. The attack was not spontaneous.

In the circumstances, the accused cannot be said to have lacked the requisite intention.

The uncle ran and hid, and, the accused, in clear observation of the two deceased, mercilessly struck them.

When the witness, Pamela Ferembu, intervened, he turned against her, despite identifying her, and, only stopped when his aunt, Moleen Sibanda, intervened.

Defence Outline, State Outline re: Approach, Testimonial Discrepancies and Prevaricative or Inconsistent Evidence

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Tafadzwa Mandeya is the mother of the accused.

Her evidence was also on common cause aspects and it was formerly admitted.

Her son confronted his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, over land boundary and the two did not agree culminating in the accused arming himself with a wooden handle. The accused used this handle to assault the deceased persons upon failing to apprehend his uncle.

Jeremiah Dekaurendo's evidence was basically a confirmation of his confrontation by the accused who armed himself and threatened to kill him. When the witness hid, the accused then targeted the two deceased who were at the road.

The witness's evidence was not contentious and it was admitted.

Also admitted was the evidence of Maud Dekaurendo, the grandmother and mother of the accused and Jeremiah Dekaurendo respectively. Her evidence essentially confirmed Jeremiah Dekaurendo's account on the altercation which ended up with the demise of the deceased.

The accused's father, John Dekaurendo, also confirmed the issue of bad blood between himself and his brother. He learnt, on the day in question, that, the accused, his son, struck the deceased after having a misunderstanding with his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo.

The evidence of the other witnesses, police details, and post office official was on common cause aspects, hence, it was also formerly admitted.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence was essentially, that, on the day in question he had an altercation over land dispute with his uncle for about 25 minutes. His uncle had come to his mother's place and the accused was not amused by this visit as he was not sure of his uncle Jeremiah Dekaurendo's intentions.

When his uncle resisted his orders to vacate the grandmother's homestead, the accused then armed himself with an axe handle and threatened to attack.

Upon pursuing and failing to get his uncle, the accused came across the two now deceased and he assaulted them out of anger.

On another breadth, the accused's statement was that he did not know what happened - this is despite him giving an account of events of the day in question.

On being asked to explain how he got details of how he assaulted the deceased, he explained that his parents narrated to him what had happened.

Absurdly, his parents did not witness the altercation and the actual physical attack of the deceased.

This means the accused narrated events according to his own observations and participation.

When he sought to portray that he did not know what happened he exposed himself as not being genuine with the court.

The accused saw the deceased persons passing by. The woman and baby did not in any manner resemble his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, such that, there is no basis for assaulting thinking he was striking his uncle.

The accused also came up with another explanation of being angry, and, that, with his emotions having been triggered by his uncle thus leading him to act in a fit of rage.

The accused could, however, not place before the court any utterances or actions by the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, which could have occasioned extensive provocation leading to momentary loss of self-control.

The thinly veiled reliance on the defence of provocation cannot be sustained in the circumstances for the obvious reason the requirement cannot be met.

Section 239 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Criminal Law Code) recognises provocation as a partial defence to murder charges in circumstances where provocation is found to exist in such a manner as to negate intention thus reducing liability to culpable homicide.

The accused, in this case, saw his uncle at his mother's house and he sought to take it upon himself to chase him away, but, the verbal attack did not cause Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave.

The accused had time to consider going to his father's home from where he brought an axe handle with which he threatened the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who then ran away.

There is no evidence to show, that, the accused acted on the spur of the moment and in a fit of rage when he struck the deceased. The attack was not spontaneous.

In the circumstances, the accused cannot be said to have lacked the requisite intention.

The uncle ran and hid, and, the accused, in clear observation of the two deceased, mercilessly struck them.

When the witness, Pamela Ferembu, intervened, he turned against her, despite identifying her, and, only stopped when his aunt, Moleen Sibanda, intervened.

The accused, in his defence, did not maintain a single version as he shifted from saying he was provoked and thus attacked the deceased in a fit of rage to saying he saw the deceased persons at a gate as they were passing by and he struck them in compliance with a voice which ordered him to kill the deceased persons as they were witches....,.

In summation, the accused denied intentionally killing the deceased, proffering explanations ranging from not knowing what he was doing, to being provoked to an extent of losing self control, and, finally, to being compelled or ordered by some voice to kill the witches.

These varied versions exposed the accused as a man trying his luck and taking a gamble in the face of overwhelming evidence on common cause aspects.

Generally, we did not hold the accused as a candid witness.

Approach, Rehearsed & Fabricated Defences & Obligation of Court to make findings on all defences proffered by Accused

The accused, in his defence, did not maintain a single version as he shifted from saying he was provoked and thus attacked the deceased in a fit of rage to saying he saw the deceased persons at a gate as they were passing by and he struck them in compliance with a voice which ordered him to kill the deceased persons as they were witches.

Defence of Diminished Mental Responsibility or Diminished Capacity re: Provocation iro Witchcraft & Cultural Beliefs

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Tafadzwa Mandeya is the mother of the accused.

Her evidence was also on common cause aspects and it was formerly admitted.

Her son confronted his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, over land boundary and the two did not agree culminating in the accused arming himself with a wooden handle. The accused used this handle to assault the deceased persons upon failing to apprehend his uncle.

Jeremiah Dekaurendo's evidence was basically a confirmation of his confrontation by the accused who armed himself and threatened to kill him. When the witness hid, the accused then targeted the two deceased who were at the road.

The witness's evidence was not contentious and it was admitted.

Also admitted was the evidence of Maud Dekaurendo, the grandmother and mother of the accused and Jeremiah Dekaurendo respectively. Her evidence essentially confirmed Jeremiah Dekaurendo's account on the altercation which ended up with the demise of the deceased.

The accused's father, John Dekaurendo, also confirmed the issue of bad blood between himself and his brother. He learnt, on the day in question, that, the accused, his son, struck the deceased after having a misunderstanding with his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo.

The evidence of the other witnesses, police details, and post office official was on common cause aspects, hence, it was also formerly admitted.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence was essentially, that, on the day in question he had an altercation over land dispute with his uncle for about 25 minutes. His uncle had come to his mother's place and the accused was not amused by this visit as he was not sure of his uncle Jeremiah Dekaurendo's intentions.

When his uncle resisted his orders to vacate the grandmother's homestead, the accused then armed himself with an axe handle and threatened to attack.

Upon pursuing and failing to get his uncle, the accused came across the two now deceased and he assaulted them out of anger.

On another breadth, the accused's statement was that he did not know what happened - this is despite him giving an account of events of the day in question.

On being asked to explain how he got details of how he assaulted the deceased, he explained that his parents narrated to him what had happened.

Absurdly, his parents did not witness the altercation and the actual physical attack of the deceased.

This means the accused narrated events according to his own observations and participation.

When he sought to portray that he did not know what happened he exposed himself as not being genuine with the court.

The accused saw the deceased persons passing by. The woman and baby did not in any manner resemble his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, such that, there is no basis for assaulting thinking he was striking his uncle.

The accused also came up with another explanation of being angry, and, that, with his emotions having been triggered by his uncle thus leading him to act in a fit of rage.

The accused could, however, not place before the court any utterances or actions by the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, which could have occasioned extensive provocation leading to momentary loss of self-control.

The thinly veiled reliance on the defence of provocation cannot be sustained in the circumstances for the obvious reason the requirement cannot be met.

Section 239 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Criminal Law Code) recognises provocation as a partial defence to murder charges in circumstances where provocation is found to exist in such a manner as to negate intention thus reducing liability to culpable homicide.

The accused, in this case, saw his uncle at his mother's house and he sought to take it upon himself to chase him away, but, the verbal attack did not cause Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave.

The accused had time to consider going to his father's home from where he brought an axe handle with which he threatened the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who then ran away.

There is no evidence to show, that, the accused acted on the spur of the moment and in a fit of rage when he struck the deceased. The attack was not spontaneous.

In the circumstances, the accused cannot be said to have lacked the requisite intention.

The uncle ran and hid, and, the accused, in clear observation of the two deceased, mercilessly struck them.

When the witness, Pamela Ferembu, intervened, he turned against her, despite identifying her, and, only stopped when his aunt, Moleen Sibanda, intervened.

The accused, in his defence, did not maintain a single version as he shifted from saying he was provoked and thus attacked the deceased in a fit of rage to saying he saw the deceased persons at a gate as they were passing by and he struck them in compliance with a voice which ordered him to kill the deceased persons as they were witches.

Even if it was to be accepted that the accused had strong beliefs in witchcraft, it is not a defence since the belief does not vitiate the mental capacity of an individual to formulate intention: see Kundai Tsaura and Another v The State HMT02-20: and S v Tsechu and Others HH271-15.

Also see S v Hamunakwadi ZLR (1) 2015…,.

Section 101 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] is instructive. It states:

“It shall not be a defence to murder, assault, or any crime, that, the accused was actuated by a genuine belief that the victim was a witch or wizard; but, a court convicting such a person may take such belief into account when imposing sentence upon him or her for the crime.”

It is apparent therefore, that, the belief in witchcraft cannot be sustained as a defence.

Indictment or Charge re: Charge Sheet, Framing of Charges, Essential Elements, Causation, Intention & Competent Verdict

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Tafadzwa Mandeya is the mother of the accused.

Her evidence was also on common cause aspects and it was formerly admitted.

Her son confronted his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, over land boundary and the two did not agree culminating in the accused arming himself with a wooden handle. The accused used this handle to assault the deceased persons upon failing to apprehend his uncle.

Jeremiah Dekaurendo's evidence was basically a confirmation of his confrontation by the accused who armed himself and threatened to kill him. When the witness hid, the accused then targeted the two deceased who were at the road.

The witness's evidence was not contentious and it was admitted.

Also admitted was the evidence of Maud Dekaurendo, the grandmother and mother of the accused and Jeremiah Dekaurendo respectively. Her evidence essentially confirmed Jeremiah Dekaurendo's account on the altercation which ended up with the demise of the deceased.

The accused's father, John Dekaurendo, also confirmed the issue of bad blood between himself and his brother. He learnt, on the day in question, that, the accused, his son, struck the deceased after having a misunderstanding with his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo.

The evidence of the other witnesses, police details, and post office official was on common cause aspects, hence, it was also formerly admitted.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence was essentially, that, on the day in question he had an altercation over land dispute with his uncle for about 25 minutes. His uncle had come to his mother's place and the accused was not amused by this visit as he was not sure of his uncle Jeremiah Dekaurendo's intentions.

When his uncle resisted his orders to vacate the grandmother's homestead, the accused then armed himself with an axe handle and threatened to attack.

Upon pursuing and failing to get his uncle, the accused came across the two now deceased and he assaulted them out of anger.

On another breadth, the accused's statement was that he did not know what happened - this is despite him giving an account of events of the day in question.

On being asked to explain how he got details of how he assaulted the deceased, he explained that his parents narrated to him what had happened.

Absurdly, his parents did not witness the altercation and the actual physical attack of the deceased.

This means the accused narrated events according to his own observations and participation.

When he sought to portray that he did not know what happened he exposed himself as not being genuine with the court.

The accused saw the deceased persons passing by. The woman and baby did not in any manner resemble his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, such that, there is no basis for assaulting thinking he was striking his uncle.

The accused also came up with another explanation of being angry, and, that, with his emotions having been triggered by his uncle thus leading him to act in a fit of rage.

The accused could, however, not place before the court any utterances or actions by the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, which could have occasioned extensive provocation leading to momentary loss of self-control.

The thinly veiled reliance on the defence of provocation cannot be sustained in the circumstances for the obvious reason the requirement cannot be met.

Section 239 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Criminal Law Code) recognises provocation as a partial defence to murder charges in circumstances where provocation is found to exist in such a manner as to negate intention thus reducing liability to culpable homicide.

The accused, in this case, saw his uncle at his mother's house and he sought to take it upon himself to chase him away, but, the verbal attack did not cause Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave.

The accused had time to consider going to his father's home from where he brought an axe handle with which he threatened the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who then ran away.

There is no evidence to show, that, the accused acted on the spur of the moment and in a fit of rage when he struck the deceased. The attack was not spontaneous.

In the circumstances, the accused cannot be said to have lacked the requisite intention.

The uncle ran and hid, and, the accused, in clear observation of the two deceased, mercilessly struck them.

When the witness, Pamela Ferembu, intervened, he turned against her, despite identifying her, and, only stopped when his aunt, Moleen Sibanda, intervened.

The accused, in his defence, did not maintain a single version as he shifted from saying he was provoked and thus attacked the deceased in a fit of rage to saying he saw the deceased persons at a gate as they were passing by and he struck them in compliance with a voice which ordered him to kill the deceased persons as they were witches.

Even if it was to be accepted that the accused had strong beliefs in witchcraft, it is not a defence since the belief does not vitiate the mental capacity of an individual to formulate intention: see Kundai Tsaura and Another v The State HMT02-20: and S v Tsechu and Others HH271-15.

Also see S v Hamunakwadi ZLR (1) 2015…,.

Section 101 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] is instructive. It states:

“It shall not be a defence to murder, assault, or any crime, that, the accused was actuated by a genuine belief that the victim was a witch or wizard; but, a court convicting such a person may take such belief into account when imposing sentence upon him or her for the crime.”

It is apparent therefore, that, the belief in witchcraft cannot be sustained as a defence.

In summation, the accused denied intentionally killing the deceased, proffering explanations ranging from not knowing what he was doing, to being provoked to an extent of losing self control, and, finally, to being compelled or ordered by some voice to kill the witches.

These varied versions exposed the accused as a man trying his luck and taking a gamble in the face of overwhelming evidence on common cause aspects.

Generally, we did not hold the accused as a candid witness.

It is common cause the accused struck the deceased using an axe handle resulting in the fatal consequences. It is not in dispute that the assault on the deceased persons was unprovoked as the accused just came across the deceased after his uncle had evaded him.

The offence which the accused is facing requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of both the actus reas and mens rea.

That the accused unlawfully assaulted the deceased has been clearly established from the State witnesses and the accused's version.

(i) Actual intention, which is clear, that, when one set out to act knowingly with an aim or desire to bring about death, and bring about the death, they have the requisite actual intention.

(ii) The second situation is where one sets out with a conduct with the realisation that such conduct may cause death, but, despite the realizations, proceeds with the conduct.

In the latter scenario, the law can infer intention from the circumstances and manner of commission of the offence: see S v Zorodzai Moyo HMA16-17 and S v Lovemore Kurangana HH267-17.

In the present case, whereas the accused cannot be said to have set out with an aim to kill the deceased persons, and killed them; he certainly cannot escape liability for realisation, that, by striking the deceased persons with an axe handle, weighing 1kg, in the head, repeatedly, death would occur.

The accused, conscious of what he was doing, subjected the deceased persons to severe assault despite realizing that his conduct would cause death if he persisted with his conduct.

The accused is accordingly found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Murder and Permissible or Competent Verdicts re: Approach, Intent, Motive, Corpse, Cause of Death & Inquest Proceedings

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Tafadzwa Mandeya is the mother of the accused.

Her evidence was also on common cause aspects and it was formerly admitted.

Her son confronted his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, over land boundary and the two did not agree culminating in the accused arming himself with a wooden handle. The accused used this handle to assault the deceased persons upon failing to apprehend his uncle.

Jeremiah Dekaurendo's evidence was basically a confirmation of his confrontation by the accused who armed himself and threatened to kill him. When the witness hid, the accused then targeted the two deceased who were at the road.

The witness's evidence was not contentious and it was admitted.

Also admitted was the evidence of Maud Dekaurendo, the grandmother and mother of the accused and Jeremiah Dekaurendo respectively. Her evidence essentially confirmed Jeremiah Dekaurendo's account on the altercation which ended up with the demise of the deceased.

The accused's father, John Dekaurendo, also confirmed the issue of bad blood between himself and his brother. He learnt, on the day in question, that, the accused, his son, struck the deceased after having a misunderstanding with his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo.

The evidence of the other witnesses, police details, and post office official was on common cause aspects, hence, it was also formerly admitted.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence was essentially, that, on the day in question he had an altercation over land dispute with his uncle for about 25 minutes. His uncle had come to his mother's place and the accused was not amused by this visit as he was not sure of his uncle Jeremiah Dekaurendo's intentions.

When his uncle resisted his orders to vacate the grandmother's homestead, the accused then armed himself with an axe handle and threatened to attack.

Upon pursuing and failing to get his uncle, the accused came across the two now deceased and he assaulted them out of anger.

On another breadth, the accused's statement was that he did not know what happened - this is despite him giving an account of events of the day in question.

On being asked to explain how he got details of how he assaulted the deceased, he explained that his parents narrated to him what had happened.

Absurdly, his parents did not witness the altercation and the actual physical attack of the deceased.

This means the accused narrated events according to his own observations and participation.

When he sought to portray that he did not know what happened he exposed himself as not being genuine with the court.

The accused saw the deceased persons passing by. The woman and baby did not in any manner resemble his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, such that, there is no basis for assaulting thinking he was striking his uncle.

The accused also came up with another explanation of being angry, and, that, with his emotions having been triggered by his uncle thus leading him to act in a fit of rage.

The accused could, however, not place before the court any utterances or actions by the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, which could have occasioned extensive provocation leading to momentary loss of self-control.

The thinly veiled reliance on the defence of provocation cannot be sustained in the circumstances for the obvious reason the requirement cannot be met.

Section 239 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Criminal Law Code) recognises provocation as a partial defence to murder charges in circumstances where provocation is found to exist in such a manner as to negate intention thus reducing liability to culpable homicide.

The accused, in this case, saw his uncle at his mother's house and he sought to take it upon himself to chase him away, but, the verbal attack did not cause Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave.

The accused had time to consider going to his father's home from where he brought an axe handle with which he threatened the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who then ran away.

There is no evidence to show, that, the accused acted on the spur of the moment and in a fit of rage when he struck the deceased. The attack was not spontaneous.

In the circumstances, the accused cannot be said to have lacked the requisite intention.

The uncle ran and hid, and, the accused, in clear observation of the two deceased, mercilessly struck them.

When the witness, Pamela Ferembu, intervened, he turned against her, despite identifying her, and, only stopped when his aunt, Moleen Sibanda, intervened.

The accused, in his defence, did not maintain a single version as he shifted from saying he was provoked and thus attacked the deceased in a fit of rage to saying he saw the deceased persons at a gate as they were passing by and he struck them in compliance with a voice which ordered him to kill the deceased persons as they were witches.

Even if it was to be accepted that the accused had strong beliefs in witchcraft, it is not a defence since the belief does not vitiate the mental capacity of an individual to formulate intention: see Kundai Tsaura and Another v The State HMT02-20: and S v Tsechu and Others HH271-15.

Also see S v Hamunakwadi ZLR (1) 2015…,.

Section 101 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] is instructive. It states:

“It shall not be a defence to murder, assault, or any crime, that, the accused was actuated by a genuine belief that the victim was a witch or wizard; but, a court convicting such a person may take such belief into account when imposing sentence upon him or her for the crime.”

It is apparent therefore, that, the belief in witchcraft cannot be sustained as a defence.

In summation, the accused denied intentionally killing the deceased, proffering explanations ranging from not knowing what he was doing, to being provoked to an extent of losing self control, and, finally, to being compelled or ordered by some voice to kill the witches.

These varied versions exposed the accused as a man trying his luck and taking a gamble in the face of overwhelming evidence on common cause aspects.

Generally, we did not hold the accused as a candid witness.

It is common cause the accused struck the deceased using an axe handle resulting in the fatal consequences. It is not in dispute that the assault on the deceased persons was unprovoked as the accused just came across the deceased after his uncle had evaded him.

The offence which the accused is facing requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of both the actus reas and mens rea.

That the accused unlawfully assaulted the deceased has been clearly established from the State witnesses and the accused's version.

(i) Actual intention, which is clear, that, when one set out to act knowingly with an aim or desire to bring about death, and bring about the death, they have the requisite actual intention.

(ii) The second situation is where one sets out with a conduct with the realisation that such conduct may cause death, but, despite the realizations, proceeds with the conduct.

In the latter scenario, the law can infer intention from the circumstances and manner of commission of the offence: see S v Zorodzai Moyo HMA16-17 and S v Lovemore Kurangana HH267-17.

In the present case, whereas the accused cannot be said to have set out with an aim to kill the deceased persons, and killed them; he certainly cannot escape liability for realisation, that, by striking the deceased persons with an axe handle, weighing 1kg, in the head, repeatedly, death would occur.

The accused, conscious of what he was doing, subjected the deceased persons to severe assault despite realizing that his conduct would cause death if he persisted with his conduct.

The accused is accordingly found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Defence of Abandonment, Claim of Right, Mistake of Fact or Law and Establishment of Mens Rea or Intention

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Tafadzwa Mandeya is the mother of the accused.

Her evidence was also on common cause aspects and it was formerly admitted.

Her son confronted his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, over land boundary and the two did not agree culminating in the accused arming himself with a wooden handle. The accused used this handle to assault the deceased persons upon failing to apprehend his uncle.

Jeremiah Dekaurendo's evidence was basically a confirmation of his confrontation by the accused who armed himself and threatened to kill him. When the witness hid, the accused then targeted the two deceased who were at the road.

The witness's evidence was not contentious and it was admitted.

Also admitted was the evidence of Maud Dekaurendo, the grandmother and mother of the accused and Jeremiah Dekaurendo respectively. Her evidence essentially confirmed Jeremiah Dekaurendo's account on the altercation which ended up with the demise of the deceased.

The accused's father, John Dekaurendo, also confirmed the issue of bad blood between himself and his brother. He learnt, on the day in question, that, the accused, his son, struck the deceased after having a misunderstanding with his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo.

The evidence of the other witnesses, police details, and post office official was on common cause aspects, hence, it was also formerly admitted.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence was essentially, that, on the day in question he had an altercation over land dispute with his uncle for about 25 minutes. His uncle had come to his mother's place and the accused was not amused by this visit as he was not sure of his uncle Jeremiah Dekaurendo's intentions.

When his uncle resisted his orders to vacate the grandmother's homestead, the accused then armed himself with an axe handle and threatened to attack.

Upon pursuing and failing to get his uncle, the accused came across the two now deceased and he assaulted them out of anger.

On another breadth, the accused's statement was that he did not know what happened - this is despite him giving an account of events of the day in question.

On being asked to explain how he got details of how he assaulted the deceased, he explained that his parents narrated to him what had happened.

Absurdly, his parents did not witness the altercation and the actual physical attack of the deceased.

This means the accused narrated events according to his own observations and participation.

When he sought to portray that he did not know what happened he exposed himself as not being genuine with the court.

The accused saw the deceased persons passing by. The woman and baby did not in any manner resemble his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, such that, there is no basis for assaulting thinking he was striking his uncle.

The accused also came up with another explanation of being angry, and, that, with his emotions having been triggered by his uncle thus leading him to act in a fit of rage.

The accused could, however, not place before the court any utterances or actions by the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, which could have occasioned extensive provocation leading to momentary loss of self-control.

The thinly veiled reliance on the defence of provocation cannot be sustained in the circumstances for the obvious reason the requirement cannot be met.

Section 239 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Criminal Law Code) recognises provocation as a partial defence to murder charges in circumstances where provocation is found to exist in such a manner as to negate intention thus reducing liability to culpable homicide.

The accused, in this case, saw his uncle at his mother's house and he sought to take it upon himself to chase him away, but, the verbal attack did not cause Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave.

The accused had time to consider going to his father's home from where he brought an axe handle with which he threatened the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who then ran away.

There is no evidence to show, that, the accused acted on the spur of the moment and in a fit of rage when he struck the deceased. The attack was not spontaneous.

In the circumstances, the accused cannot be said to have lacked the requisite intention.

The uncle ran and hid, and, the accused, in clear observation of the two deceased, mercilessly struck them.

When the witness, Pamela Ferembu, intervened, he turned against her, despite identifying her, and, only stopped when his aunt, Moleen Sibanda, intervened.

The accused, in his defence, did not maintain a single version as he shifted from saying he was provoked and thus attacked the deceased in a fit of rage to saying he saw the deceased persons at a gate as they were passing by and he struck them in compliance with a voice which ordered him to kill the deceased persons as they were witches.

Even if it was to be accepted that the accused had strong beliefs in witchcraft, it is not a defence since the belief does not vitiate the mental capacity of an individual to formulate intention: see Kundai Tsaura and Another v The State HMT02-20: and S v Tsechu and Others HH271-15.

Also see S v Hamunakwadi ZLR (1) 2015…,.

Section 101 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] is instructive. It states:

“It shall not be a defence to murder, assault, or any crime, that, the accused was actuated by a genuine belief that the victim was a witch or wizard; but, a court convicting such a person may take such belief into account when imposing sentence upon him or her for the crime.”

It is apparent therefore, that, the belief in witchcraft cannot be sustained as a defence.

In summation, the accused denied intentionally killing the deceased, proffering explanations ranging from not knowing what he was doing, to being provoked to an extent of losing self control, and, finally, to being compelled or ordered by some voice to kill the witches.

These varied versions exposed the accused as a man trying his luck and taking a gamble in the face of overwhelming evidence on common cause aspects.

Generally, we did not hold the accused as a candid witness.

It is common cause the accused struck the deceased using an axe handle resulting in the fatal consequences. It is not in dispute that the assault on the deceased persons was unprovoked as the accused just came across the deceased after his uncle had evaded him.

The offence which the accused is facing requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of both the actus reas and mens rea.

That the accused unlawfully assaulted the deceased has been clearly established from the State witnesses and the accused's version.

(i) Actual intention, which is clear, that, when one set out to act knowingly with an aim or desire to bring about death, and bring about the death, they have the requisite actual intention.

(ii) The second situation is where one sets out with a conduct with the realisation that such conduct may cause death, but, despite the realizations, proceeds with the conduct.

In the latter scenario, the law can infer intention from the circumstances and manner of commission of the offence: see S v Zorodzai Moyo HMA16-17 and S v Lovemore Kurangana HH267-17.

In the present case, whereas the accused cannot be said to have set out with an aim to kill the deceased persons, and killed them; he certainly cannot escape liability for realisation, that, by striking the deceased persons with an axe handle, weighing 1kg, in the head, repeatedly, death would occur.

The accused, conscious of what he was doing, subjected the deceased persons to severe assault despite realizing that his conduct would cause death if he persisted with his conduct.

The accused is accordingly found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Findings of Fact re: Assessment of Evidence, Inferences, the Cardinal Rule of Logic and Evidentiary Concessions

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Tafadzwa Mandeya is the mother of the accused.

Her evidence was also on common cause aspects and it was formerly admitted.

Her son confronted his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, over land boundary and the two did not agree culminating in the accused arming himself with a wooden handle. The accused used this handle to assault the deceased persons upon failing to apprehend his uncle.

Jeremiah Dekaurendo's evidence was basically a confirmation of his confrontation by the accused who armed himself and threatened to kill him. When the witness hid, the accused then targeted the two deceased who were at the road.

The witness's evidence was not contentious and it was admitted.

Also admitted was the evidence of Maud Dekaurendo, the grandmother and mother of the accused and Jeremiah Dekaurendo respectively. Her evidence essentially confirmed Jeremiah Dekaurendo's account on the altercation which ended up with the demise of the deceased.

The accused's father, John Dekaurendo, also confirmed the issue of bad blood between himself and his brother. He learnt, on the day in question, that, the accused, his son, struck the deceased after having a misunderstanding with his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo.

The evidence of the other witnesses, police details, and post office official was on common cause aspects, hence, it was also formerly admitted.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence was essentially, that, on the day in question he had an altercation over land dispute with his uncle for about 25 minutes. His uncle had come to his mother's place and the accused was not amused by this visit as he was not sure of his uncle Jeremiah Dekaurendo's intentions.

When his uncle resisted his orders to vacate the grandmother's homestead, the accused then armed himself with an axe handle and threatened to attack.

Upon pursuing and failing to get his uncle, the accused came across the two now deceased and he assaulted them out of anger.

On another breadth, the accused's statement was that he did not know what happened - this is despite him giving an account of events of the day in question.

On being asked to explain how he got details of how he assaulted the deceased, he explained that his parents narrated to him what had happened.

Absurdly, his parents did not witness the altercation and the actual physical attack of the deceased.

This means the accused narrated events according to his own observations and participation.

When he sought to portray that he did not know what happened he exposed himself as not being genuine with the court.

The accused saw the deceased persons passing by. The woman and baby did not in any manner resemble his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, such that, there is no basis for assaulting thinking he was striking his uncle.

The accused also came up with another explanation of being angry, and, that, with his emotions having been triggered by his uncle thus leading him to act in a fit of rage.

The accused could, however, not place before the court any utterances or actions by the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, which could have occasioned extensive provocation leading to momentary loss of self-control.

The thinly veiled reliance on the defence of provocation cannot be sustained in the circumstances for the obvious reason the requirement cannot be met.

Section 239 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Criminal Law Code) recognises provocation as a partial defence to murder charges in circumstances where provocation is found to exist in such a manner as to negate intention thus reducing liability to culpable homicide.

The accused, in this case, saw his uncle at his mother's house and he sought to take it upon himself to chase him away, but, the verbal attack did not cause Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave.

The accused had time to consider going to his father's home from where he brought an axe handle with which he threatened the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who then ran away.

There is no evidence to show, that, the accused acted on the spur of the moment and in a fit of rage when he struck the deceased. The attack was not spontaneous.

In the circumstances, the accused cannot be said to have lacked the requisite intention.

The uncle ran and hid, and, the accused, in clear observation of the two deceased, mercilessly struck them.

When the witness, Pamela Ferembu, intervened, he turned against her, despite identifying her, and, only stopped when his aunt, Moleen Sibanda, intervened.

The accused, in his defence, did not maintain a single version as he shifted from saying he was provoked and thus attacked the deceased in a fit of rage to saying he saw the deceased persons at a gate as they were passing by and he struck them in compliance with a voice which ordered him to kill the deceased persons as they were witches.

Even if it was to be accepted that the accused had strong beliefs in witchcraft, it is not a defence since the belief does not vitiate the mental capacity of an individual to formulate intention: see Kundai Tsaura and Another v The State HMT02-20: and S v Tsechu and Others HH271-15.

Also see S v Hamunakwadi ZLR (1) 2015…,.

Section 101 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] is instructive. It states:

“It shall not be a defence to murder, assault, or any crime, that, the accused was actuated by a genuine belief that the victim was a witch or wizard; but, a court convicting such a person may take such belief into account when imposing sentence upon him or her for the crime.”

It is apparent therefore, that, the belief in witchcraft cannot be sustained as a defence.

In summation, the accused denied intentionally killing the deceased, proffering explanations ranging from not knowing what he was doing, to being provoked to an extent of losing self control, and, finally, to being compelled or ordered by some voice to kill the witches.

These varied versions exposed the accused as a man trying his luck and taking a gamble in the face of overwhelming evidence on common cause aspects.

Generally, we did not hold the accused as a candid witness.

It is common cause the accused struck the deceased using an axe handle resulting in the fatal consequences. It is not in dispute that the assault on the deceased persons was unprovoked as the accused just came across the deceased after his uncle had evaded him.

The offence which the accused is facing requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of both the actus reas and mens rea.

That the accused unlawfully assaulted the deceased has been clearly established from the State witnesses and the accused's version.

(i) Actual intention, which is clear, that, when one set out to act knowingly with an aim or desire to bring about death, and bring about the death, they have the requisite actual intention.

(ii) The second situation is where one sets out with a conduct with the realisation that such conduct may cause death, but, despite the realizations, proceeds with the conduct.

In the latter scenario, the law can infer intention from the circumstances and manner of commission of the offence: see S v Zorodzai Moyo HMA16-17 and S v Lovemore Kurangana HH267-17.

In the present case, whereas the accused cannot be said to have set out with an aim to kill the deceased persons, and killed them; he certainly cannot escape liability for realisation, that, by striking the deceased persons with an axe handle, weighing 1kg, in the head, repeatedly, death would occur.

The accused, conscious of what he was doing, subjected the deceased persons to severe assault despite realizing that his conduct would cause death if he persisted with his conduct.

The accused is accordingly found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Murder re: Murder with Constructive Intent, Foreseeability Intention, Reckless Conduct or Dolus Eventualis

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Tafadzwa Mandeya is the mother of the accused.

Her evidence was also on common cause aspects and it was formerly admitted.

Her son confronted his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, over land boundary and the two did not agree culminating in the accused arming himself with a wooden handle. The accused used this handle to assault the deceased persons upon failing to apprehend his uncle.

Jeremiah Dekaurendo's evidence was basically a confirmation of his confrontation by the accused who armed himself and threatened to kill him. When the witness hid, the accused then targeted the two deceased who were at the road.

The witness's evidence was not contentious and it was admitted.

Also admitted was the evidence of Maud Dekaurendo, the grandmother and mother of the accused and Jeremiah Dekaurendo respectively. Her evidence essentially confirmed Jeremiah Dekaurendo's account on the altercation which ended up with the demise of the deceased.

The accused's father, John Dekaurendo, also confirmed the issue of bad blood between himself and his brother. He learnt, on the day in question, that, the accused, his son, struck the deceased after having a misunderstanding with his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo.

The evidence of the other witnesses, police details, and post office official was on common cause aspects, hence, it was also formerly admitted.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence was essentially, that, on the day in question he had an altercation over land dispute with his uncle for about 25 minutes. His uncle had come to his mother's place and the accused was not amused by this visit as he was not sure of his uncle Jeremiah Dekaurendo's intentions.

When his uncle resisted his orders to vacate the grandmother's homestead, the accused then armed himself with an axe handle and threatened to attack.

Upon pursuing and failing to get his uncle, the accused came across the two now deceased and he assaulted them out of anger.

On another breadth, the accused's statement was that he did not know what happened - this is despite him giving an account of events of the day in question.

On being asked to explain how he got details of how he assaulted the deceased, he explained that his parents narrated to him what had happened.

Absurdly, his parents did not witness the altercation and the actual physical attack of the deceased.

This means the accused narrated events according to his own observations and participation.

When he sought to portray that he did not know what happened he exposed himself as not being genuine with the court.

The accused saw the deceased persons passing by. The woman and baby did not in any manner resemble his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, such that, there is no basis for assaulting thinking he was striking his uncle.

The accused also came up with another explanation of being angry, and, that, with his emotions having been triggered by his uncle thus leading him to act in a fit of rage.

The accused could, however, not place before the court any utterances or actions by the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, which could have occasioned extensive provocation leading to momentary loss of self-control.

The thinly veiled reliance on the defence of provocation cannot be sustained in the circumstances for the obvious reason the requirement cannot be met.

Section 239 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Criminal Law Code) recognises provocation as a partial defence to murder charges in circumstances where provocation is found to exist in such a manner as to negate intention thus reducing liability to culpable homicide.

The accused, in this case, saw his uncle at his mother's house and he sought to take it upon himself to chase him away, but, the verbal attack did not cause Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave.

The accused had time to consider going to his father's home from where he brought an axe handle with which he threatened the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who then ran away.

There is no evidence to show, that, the accused acted on the spur of the moment and in a fit of rage when he struck the deceased. The attack was not spontaneous.

In the circumstances, the accused cannot be said to have lacked the requisite intention.

The uncle ran and hid, and, the accused, in clear observation of the two deceased, mercilessly struck them.

When the witness, Pamela Ferembu, intervened, he turned against her, despite identifying her, and, only stopped when his aunt, Moleen Sibanda, intervened.

The accused, in his defence, did not maintain a single version as he shifted from saying he was provoked and thus attacked the deceased in a fit of rage to saying he saw the deceased persons at a gate as they were passing by and he struck them in compliance with a voice which ordered him to kill the deceased persons as they were witches.

Even if it was to be accepted that the accused had strong beliefs in witchcraft, it is not a defence since the belief does not vitiate the mental capacity of an individual to formulate intention: see Kundai Tsaura and Another v The State HMT02-20: and S v Tsechu and Others HH271-15.

Also see S v Hamunakwadi ZLR (1) 2015…,.

Section 101 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] is instructive. It states:

“It shall not be a defence to murder, assault, or any crime, that, the accused was actuated by a genuine belief that the victim was a witch or wizard; but, a court convicting such a person may take such belief into account when imposing sentence upon him or her for the crime.”

It is apparent therefore, that, the belief in witchcraft cannot be sustained as a defence.

In summation, the accused denied intentionally killing the deceased, proffering explanations ranging from not knowing what he was doing, to being provoked to an extent of losing self control, and, finally, to being compelled or ordered by some voice to kill the witches.

These varied versions exposed the accused as a man trying his luck and taking a gamble in the face of overwhelming evidence on common cause aspects.

Generally, we did not hold the accused as a candid witness.

It is common cause the accused struck the deceased using an axe handle resulting in the fatal consequences. It is not in dispute that the assault on the deceased persons was unprovoked as the accused just came across the deceased after his uncle had evaded him.

The offence which the accused is facing requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of both the actus reas and mens rea.

That the accused unlawfully assaulted the deceased has been clearly established from the State witnesses and the accused's version.

(i) Actual intention, which is clear, that, when one set out to act knowingly with an aim or desire to bring about death, and bring about the death, they have the requisite actual intention.

(ii) The second situation is where one sets out with a conduct with the realisation that such conduct may cause death, but, despite the realizations, proceeds with the conduct.

In the latter scenario, the law can infer intention from the circumstances and manner of commission of the offence: see S v Zorodzai Moyo HMA16-17 and S v Lovemore Kurangana HH267-17.

In the present case, whereas the accused cannot be said to have set out with an aim to kill the deceased persons, and killed them; he certainly cannot escape liability for realisation, that, by striking the deceased persons with an axe handle, weighing 1kg, in the head, repeatedly, death would occur.

The accused, conscious of what he was doing, subjected the deceased persons to severe assault despite realizing that his conduct would cause death if he persisted with his conduct.

The accused is accordingly found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Sentencing re: Murder iro Murder with Constructive Intent

The accused is..., found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Sentence

In passing sentence, we have considered all mitigatory factors in your favour as advanced by counsel.

You are a young, first offender who committed a grave offence at the age of 18.

You have been in custody since September 2018; that means you have been in for more than a year. The trauma of the pre-trial incarceration, coupled with the trauma brought about by the suspense of not knowing the outcome of the matter, cannot be under-estimated.

You will, for the rest of your life, live with the stigma of having killed two human beings.

It is humane to consider customarily appeasing the bereaved family; however, clearly, no amount of compensation will bring back the needlessly lost precious human life.

In aggravation, as advanced by the State counsel, is the fact that your moral blameworthiness is high. Passers-by lost their life for no reason. You displayed hooliganism of the worst kind by attacking a 31 year old woman strapping a 3 year old toddler on her back.

There was no provocation or retaliation, but, you mercilessly, and in an unrelenting manner, struck the deceased severally, and severely, on the head thereby causing death.

You displayed no sense of responsibility and respect for elders, as evidenced by you taking it upon yourself to attack your uncle who is older than your father.

It is accepted there was a family feud, but, you, as a child, had no business in trying to resolve brothers issue. Your uncle was at his mother's house and you had no business chasing him away.

The matter, besides being criminal, shows the moral decadence which is now rampant among youths in their lack of respect for elders. Such indiscipline, based on bragging on physical prowess, cannot go unpunished.

No one has a right to take away another's precious human life. The right to life is a God-given and constitutionally enshrined right.

Violence should never be resorted to for dispute resolution.

The courts should express their displeasure in the much increasing loss of life due to violence by passing appropriate sentences.

In seeking to match the offence to the offender, while at the same time ensuring that the societal interests are met, we will temper justice with mercy in due recognition of your age. It is hoped, that, during the time you will spend at Correctional Services you will be rehabilitated and moulded into a more responsible citizen. You are sentenced as follows:

18 years imprisonment.

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

The accused is..., found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Sentence

In passing sentence, we have considered all mitigatory factors in your favour as advanced by counsel.

You are a young, first offender who committed a grave offence at the age of 18.

You have been in custody since September 2018; that means you have been in for more than a year. The trauma of the pre-trial incarceration, coupled with the trauma brought about by the suspense of not knowing the outcome of the matter, cannot be under-estimated.

You will, for the rest of your life, live with the stigma of having killed two human beings.

It is humane to consider customarily appeasing the bereaved family; however, clearly, no amount of compensation will bring back the needlessly lost precious human life.

In aggravation, as advanced by the State counsel, is the fact that your moral blameworthiness is high. Passers-by lost their life for no reason. You displayed hooliganism of the worst kind by attacking a 31 year old woman strapping a 3 year old toddler on her back.

There was no provocation or retaliation, but, you mercilessly, and in an unrelenting manner, struck the deceased severally, and severely, on the head thereby causing death.

You displayed no sense of responsibility and respect for elders, as evidenced by you taking it upon yourself to attack your uncle who is older than your father.

It is accepted there was a family feud, but, you, as a child, had no business in trying to resolve brothers issue. Your uncle was at his mother's house and you had no business chasing him away.

The matter, besides being criminal, shows the moral decadence which is now rampant among youths in their lack of respect for elders. Such indiscipline, based on bragging on physical prowess, cannot go unpunished.

No one has a right to take away another's precious human life. The right to life is a God-given and constitutionally enshrined right.

Violence should never be resorted to for dispute resolution.

The courts should express their displeasure in the much increasing loss of life due to violence by passing appropriate sentences.

In seeking to match the offence to the offender, while at the same time ensuring that the societal interests are met, we will temper justice with mercy in due recognition of your age. It is hoped, that, during the time you will spend at Correctional Services you will be rehabilitated and moulded into a more responsible citizen. You are sentenced as follows:

18 years imprisonment.

Sentencing re: Approach iro Co-Accused, Gender and Age Considerations & the Principle of Equality of Treatment

The accused is..., found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Sentence

In passing sentence, we have considered all mitigatory factors in your favour as advanced by counsel.

You are a young, first offender who committed a grave offence at the age of 18.

You have been in custody since September 2018; that means you have been in for more than a year. The trauma of the pre-trial incarceration, coupled with the trauma brought about by the suspense of not knowing the outcome of the matter, cannot be under-estimated.

You will, for the rest of your life, live with the stigma of having killed two human beings.

It is humane to consider customarily appeasing the bereaved family; however, clearly, no amount of compensation will bring back the needlessly lost precious human life.

In aggravation, as advanced by the State counsel, is the fact that your moral blameworthiness is high. Passers-by lost their life for no reason. You displayed hooliganism of the worst kind by attacking a 31 year old woman strapping a 3 year old toddler on her back.

There was no provocation or retaliation, but, you mercilessly, and in an unrelenting manner, struck the deceased severally, and severely, on the head thereby causing death.

You displayed no sense of responsibility and respect for elders, as evidenced by you taking it upon yourself to attack your uncle who is older than your father.

It is accepted there was a family feud, but, you, as a child, had no business in trying to resolve brothers issue. Your uncle was at his mother's house and you had no business chasing him away.

The matter, besides being criminal, shows the moral decadence which is now rampant among youths in their lack of respect for elders. Such indiscipline, based on bragging on physical prowess, cannot go unpunished.

No one has a right to take away another's precious human life. The right to life is a God-given and constitutionally enshrined right.

Violence should never be resorted to for dispute resolution.

The courts should express their displeasure in the much increasing loss of life due to violence by passing appropriate sentences.

In seeking to match the offence to the offender, while at the same time ensuring that the societal interests are met, we will temper justice with mercy in due recognition of your age. It is hoped, that, during the time you will spend at Correctional Services you will be rehabilitated and moulded into a more responsible citizen. You are sentenced as follows:

18 years imprisonment.

Sentencing re: Approach iro First Offenders

The accused is..., found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Sentence

In passing sentence, we have considered all mitigatory factors in your favour as advanced by counsel.

You are a young, first offender who committed a grave offence at the age of 18.

You have been in custody since September 2018; that means you have been in for more than a year. The trauma of the pre-trial incarceration, coupled with the trauma brought about by the suspense of not knowing the outcome of the matter, cannot be under-estimated.

You will, for the rest of your life, live with the stigma of having killed two human beings.

It is humane to consider customarily appeasing the bereaved family; however, clearly, no amount of compensation will bring back the needlessly lost precious human life.

In aggravation, as advanced by the State counsel, is the fact that your moral blameworthiness is high. Passers-by lost their life for no reason. You displayed hooliganism of the worst kind by attacking a 31 year old woman strapping a 3 year old toddler on her back.

There was no provocation or retaliation, but, you mercilessly, and in an unrelenting manner, struck the deceased severally, and severely, on the head thereby causing death.

You displayed no sense of responsibility and respect for elders, as evidenced by you taking it upon yourself to attack your uncle who is older than your father.

It is accepted there was a family feud, but, you, as a child, had no business in trying to resolve brothers issue. Your uncle was at his mother's house and you had no business chasing him away.

The matter, besides being criminal, shows the moral decadence which is now rampant among youths in their lack of respect for elders. Such indiscipline, based on bragging on physical prowess, cannot go unpunished.

No one has a right to take away another's precious human life. The right to life is a God-given and constitutionally enshrined right.

Violence should never be resorted to for dispute resolution.

The courts should express their displeasure in the much increasing loss of life due to violence by passing appropriate sentences.

In seeking to match the offence to the offender, while at the same time ensuring that the societal interests are met, we will temper justice with mercy in due recognition of your age. It is hoped, that, during the time you will spend at Correctional Services you will be rehabilitated and moulded into a more responsible citizen. You are sentenced as follows:

18 years imprisonment.

Sentencing re: Approach iro Incarceration Conditions and the Effect of Pre-trial Detention and Constitutional Rights Violations

The accused is..., found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Sentence

In passing sentence, we have considered all mitigatory factors in your favour as advanced by counsel.

You are a young, first offender who committed a grave offence at the age of 18.

You have been in custody since September 2018; that means you have been in for more than a year. The trauma of the pre-trial incarceration, coupled with the trauma brought about by the suspense of not knowing the outcome of the matter, cannot be under-estimated.

You will, for the rest of your life, live with the stigma of having killed two human beings.

It is humane to consider customarily appeasing the bereaved family; however, clearly, no amount of compensation will bring back the needlessly lost precious human life.

In aggravation, as advanced by the State counsel, is the fact that your moral blameworthiness is high. Passers-by lost their life for no reason. You displayed hooliganism of the worst kind by attacking a 31 year old woman strapping a 3 year old toddler on her back.

There was no provocation or retaliation, but, you mercilessly, and in an unrelenting manner, struck the deceased severally, and severely, on the head thereby causing death.

You displayed no sense of responsibility and respect for elders, as evidenced by you taking it upon yourself to attack your uncle who is older than your father.

It is accepted there was a family feud, but, you, as a child, had no business in trying to resolve brothers issue. Your uncle was at his mother's house and you had no business chasing him away.

The matter, besides being criminal, shows the moral decadence which is now rampant among youths in their lack of respect for elders. Such indiscipline, based on bragging on physical prowess, cannot go unpunished.

No one has a right to take away another's precious human life. The right to life is a God-given and constitutionally enshrined right.

Violence should never be resorted to for dispute resolution.

The courts should express their displeasure in the much increasing loss of life due to violence by passing appropriate sentences.

In seeking to match the offence to the offender, while at the same time ensuring that the societal interests are met, we will temper justice with mercy in due recognition of your age. It is hoped, that, during the time you will spend at Correctional Services you will be rehabilitated and moulded into a more responsible citizen. You are sentenced as follows:

18 years imprisonment.

Sentencing re: Approach iro Contritional Compensation & Conduct of Accused Ex Post Facto Commission of the Offence

The accused is..., found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Sentence

In passing sentence, we have considered all mitigatory factors in your favour as advanced by counsel.

You are a young, first offender who committed a grave offence at the age of 18.

You have been in custody since September 2018; that means you have been in for more than a year. The trauma of the pre-trial incarceration, coupled with the trauma brought about by the suspense of not knowing the outcome of the matter, cannot be under-estimated.

You will, for the rest of your life, live with the stigma of having killed two human beings.

It is humane to consider customarily appeasing the bereaved family; however, clearly, no amount of compensation will bring back the needlessly lost precious human life.

In aggravation, as advanced by the State counsel, is the fact that your moral blameworthiness is high. Passers-by lost their life for no reason. You displayed hooliganism of the worst kind by attacking a 31 year old woman strapping a 3 year old toddler on her back.

There was no provocation or retaliation, but, you mercilessly, and in an unrelenting manner, struck the deceased severally, and severely, on the head thereby causing death.

You displayed no sense of responsibility and respect for elders, as evidenced by you taking it upon yourself to attack your uncle who is older than your father.

It is accepted there was a family feud, but, you, as a child, had no business in trying to resolve brothers issue. Your uncle was at his mother's house and you had no business chasing him away.

The matter, besides being criminal, shows the moral decadence which is now rampant among youths in their lack of respect for elders. Such indiscipline, based on bragging on physical prowess, cannot go unpunished.

No one has a right to take away another's precious human life. The right to life is a God-given and constitutionally enshrined right.

Violence should never be resorted to for dispute resolution.

The courts should express their displeasure in the much increasing loss of life due to violence by passing appropriate sentences.

In seeking to match the offence to the offender, while at the same time ensuring that the societal interests are met, we will temper justice with mercy in due recognition of your age. It is hoped, that, during the time you will spend at Correctional Services you will be rehabilitated and moulded into a more responsible citizen. You are sentenced as follows:

18 years imprisonment.

Children Violations

The accused pleaded guilty to two Counts of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred as the Criminal Code).

The State alleges, that, on 8 September 2018, and at Rori Village, Headman Samanga, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley the accused person unlawfully caused the death of Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano intending to kill them or realizing that there was a possibility that his conduct might cause their death and continued to engaged in that conduct despite the risk or possibility by striking the two deceased persons on their heads with an axe handle thereby causing injuries from which the said Regina Chibate and Walter Nyagano died.

The brief facts forming the basis of the allegation are as follows:

On the fateful day, 8 September 2018, the accused saw Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who had visited his mother at the latter's homestead. The accused approached and ordered Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave his mother's homestead which order Jeremiah Dekaurendo did not comply with.

The accused went to his own father's residence and came back armed with a wooden axe handle.

He charged towards Jeremiah Dekaurendo who fled, and, despite the chase, the accused failed to catch up with him.

The accused then came across Regina Chibate, who was carrying Walter Nyagano on her back, and he struck the two on their heads with the wooden handle.

The accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden handle thereby causing injuries on the head from which the two deceased died.

A post-mortem report, compiled by Dr Capetilla Gomex, after the examination of the remains of Regina Chibate, was tendered as exhibit 3 by consent.

The doctor concluded, that, the cause of death was right parieto occipital subarachnoid haemorrhage, multiple skull bone fracture, and severe head injuries.

Doctor Cephas Fante, also, on certifying the two bodies dead, observed the two deceased had sustained skull fractures.

The accused, in his Defence Outline, denied ever having an intention to kill the deceased persons.

He stated, that, he had an altercation with his uncle, which was triggered by a long standing and underlying dispute concerning his family. He was so enraged and overcome by emotions and anger resulting in him losing his mind, and, thus, in a fit of rage and unbeknown to him he struck the deceased persons.

The State relied on evidence of 12 witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while the others evidence was formerly admitted as it appears on the summary of the State case in terms of section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].

The State also tendered the axe handle used to assault the deceased as exhibit 1 and certificate of weight of same showing the handle weighed 1kg, exhibit 4; the accused's warned and cautioned statement, exhibit 2, and the sketch plan drawn by the police per indications from the accused, exhibit 5.

All exhibits were tendered by consent.

The defence, in turn, also relied on evidence of the accused as the only witness who testified in the defence case.

Worth noting is the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement, wherein, just like in his defence, the accused admitted assaulting the two deceased on the head with no intention to kill as he was unaware of what he was doing but just following voices commanding him to murder these people as they were witches.

The State witness who gave oral evidence, one Pamela Ferembu, recounted events of the day in question as follows:

She was in her kitchen hut when her attention was roused by screams she heard from the road. She rushed to the scene and found the accused, whom she was well known to, assaulting a woman who was strapping a baby on her back. She observed the accused strike the now deceased with an axe handle, and, when she questioned the accused why he was assaulting the deceased the accused turned and said she was actually the person he was after.

She further inquired if the accused knew her and he identified her by name as mother “mother of Sauma”.

She observed that the accused's face was fierce as he assaulted the mother and child who were, at that time, on the ground.

The witness raised alarm for help and it was then that the accused's aunt, one Moleen Sibanda, came and restrained the accused from further assaulting the now deceased persons.

Upon the intervention of his aunt, Moleen Sipanda, the accused dropped the axe handle and walked away in the direction of his home.

The witness maintained that the accused knew what he was doing when he assaulted the deceased persons, as he, on being confronted by the witness, had no difficulty identifying her.

The witness's evidence was straight forward and we viewed her as a candid witness. She did not seek to speculate on what triggered the assault but confined her evidence to her observations at the scene. She generally was viewed as an honest witness.

Moleen Sipanda's evidence tallied with Pamela Ferembu's evidence on material aspects.

The witness's evidence was formerly admitted.

She heard screams from the road; while at a distance of about 50 meters, she observed the accused striking the two deceased who were now lying motionless on the ground. The witness drew close and restrained the accused from further assaulting the deceased who were lying motionless in a pool of blood.

Tafadzwa Mandeya is the mother of the accused.

Her evidence was also on common cause aspects and it was formerly admitted.

Her son confronted his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, over land boundary and the two did not agree culminating in the accused arming himself with a wooden handle. The accused used this handle to assault the deceased persons upon failing to apprehend his uncle.

Jeremiah Dekaurendo's evidence was basically a confirmation of his confrontation by the accused who armed himself and threatened to kill him. When the witness hid, the accused then targeted the two deceased who were at the road.

The witness's evidence was not contentious and it was admitted.

Also admitted was the evidence of Maud Dekaurendo, the grandmother and mother of the accused and Jeremiah Dekaurendo respectively. Her evidence essentially confirmed Jeremiah Dekaurendo's account on the altercation which ended up with the demise of the deceased.

The accused's father, John Dekaurendo, also confirmed the issue of bad blood between himself and his brother. He learnt, on the day in question, that, the accused, his son, struck the deceased after having a misunderstanding with his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo.

The evidence of the other witnesses, police details, and post office official was on common cause aspects, hence, it was also formerly admitted.

The accused was the only witness in the defence case.

His evidence was essentially, that, on the day in question he had an altercation over land dispute with his uncle for about 25 minutes. His uncle had come to his mother's place and the accused was not amused by this visit as he was not sure of his uncle Jeremiah Dekaurendo's intentions.

When his uncle resisted his orders to vacate the grandmother's homestead, the accused then armed himself with an axe handle and threatened to attack.

Upon pursuing and failing to get his uncle, the accused came across the two now deceased and he assaulted them out of anger.

On another breadth, the accused's statement was that he did not know what happened - this is despite him giving an account of events of the day in question.

On being asked to explain how he got details of how he assaulted the deceased, he explained that his parents narrated to him what had happened.

Absurdly, his parents did not witness the altercation and the actual physical attack of the deceased.

This means the accused narrated events according to his own observations and participation.

When he sought to portray that he did not know what happened he exposed himself as not being genuine with the court.

The accused saw the deceased persons passing by. The woman and baby did not in any manner resemble his uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, such that, there is no basis for assaulting thinking he was striking his uncle.

The accused also came up with another explanation of being angry, and, that, with his emotions having been triggered by his uncle thus leading him to act in a fit of rage.

The accused could, however, not place before the court any utterances or actions by the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, which could have occasioned extensive provocation leading to momentary loss of self-control.

The thinly veiled reliance on the defence of provocation cannot be sustained in the circumstances for the obvious reason the requirement cannot be met.

Section 239 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Criminal Law Code) recognises provocation as a partial defence to murder charges in circumstances where provocation is found to exist in such a manner as to negate intention thus reducing liability to culpable homicide.

The accused, in this case, saw his uncle at his mother's house and he sought to take it upon himself to chase him away, but, the verbal attack did not cause Jeremiah Dekaurendo to leave.

The accused had time to consider going to his father's home from where he brought an axe handle with which he threatened the uncle, Jeremiah Dekaurendo, who then ran away.

There is no evidence to show, that, the accused acted on the spur of the moment and in a fit of rage when he struck the deceased. The attack was not spontaneous.

In the circumstances, the accused cannot be said to have lacked the requisite intention.

The uncle ran and hid, and, the accused, in clear observation of the two deceased, mercilessly struck them.

When the witness, Pamela Ferembu, intervened, he turned against her, despite identifying her, and, only stopped when his aunt, Moleen Sibanda, intervened.

The accused, in his defence, did not maintain a single version as he shifted from saying he was provoked and thus attacked the deceased in a fit of rage to saying he saw the deceased persons at a gate as they were passing by and he struck them in compliance with a voice which ordered him to kill the deceased persons as they were witches.

Even if it was to be accepted that the accused had strong beliefs in witchcraft, it is not a defence since the belief does not vitiate the mental capacity of an individual to formulate intention: see Kundai Tsaura and Another v The State HMT02-20: and S v Tsechu and Others HH271-15.

Also see S v Hamunakwadi ZLR (1) 2015…,.

Section 101 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] is instructive. It states:

“It shall not be a defence to murder, assault, or any crime, that, the accused was actuated by a genuine belief that the victim was a witch or wizard; but, a court convicting such a person may take such belief into account when imposing sentence upon him or her for the crime.”

It is apparent therefore, that, the belief in witchcraft cannot be sustained as a defence.

In summation, the accused denied intentionally killing the deceased, proffering explanations ranging from not knowing what he was doing, to being provoked to an extent of losing self control, and, finally, to being compelled or ordered by some voice to kill the witches.

These varied versions exposed the accused as a man trying his luck and taking a gamble in the face of overwhelming evidence on common cause aspects.

Generally, we did not hold the accused as a candid witness.

It is common cause the accused struck the deceased using an axe handle resulting in the fatal consequences. It is not in dispute that the assault on the deceased persons was unprovoked as the accused just came across the deceased after his uncle had evaded him.

The offence which the accused is facing requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of both the actus reas and mens rea.

That the accused unlawfully assaulted the deceased has been clearly established from the State witnesses and the accused's version.

(i) Actual intention, which is clear, that, when one set out to act knowingly with an aim or desire to bring about death, and bring about the death, they have the requisite actual intention.

(ii) The second situation is where one sets out with a conduct with the realisation that such conduct may cause death, but, despite the realizations, proceeds with the conduct.

In the latter scenario, the law can infer intention from the circumstances and manner of commission of the offence: see S v Zorodzai Moyo HMA16-17 and S v Lovemore Kurangana HH267-17.

In the present case, whereas the accused cannot be said to have set out with an aim to kill the deceased persons, and killed them; he certainly cannot escape liability for realisation, that, by striking the deceased persons with an axe handle, weighing 1kg, in the head, repeatedly, death would occur.

The accused, conscious of what he was doing, subjected the deceased persons to severe assault despite realizing that his conduct would cause death if he persisted with his conduct.

The accused is accordingly found guilty of murder with constructive intention as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).

Sentence

In passing sentence, we have considered all mitigatory factors in your favour as advanced by counsel.

You are a young, first offender who committed a grave offence at the age of 18.

You have been in custody since September 2018; that means you have been in for more than a year. The trauma of the pre-trial incarceration, coupled with the trauma brought about by the suspense of not knowing the outcome of the matter, cannot be under-estimated.

You will, for the rest of your life, live with the stigma of having killed two human beings.

It is humane to consider customarily appeasing the bereaved family; however, clearly, no amount of compensation will bring back the needlessly lost precious human life.

In aggravation, as advanced by the State counsel, is the fact that your moral blameworthiness is high. Passers-by lost their life for no reason. You displayed hooliganism of the worst kind by attacking a 31 year old woman strapping a 3 year old toddler on her back.

There was no provocation or retaliation, but, you mercilessly, and in an unrelenting manner, struck the deceased severally, and severely, on the head thereby causing death.

You displayed no sense of responsibility and respect for elders, as evidenced by you taking it upon yourself to attack your uncle who is older than your father.

It is accepted there was a family feud, but, you, as a child, had no business in trying to resolve brothers issue. Your uncle was at his mother's house and you had no business chasing him away.

The matter, besides being criminal, shows the moral decadence which is now rampant among youths in their lack of respect for elders. Such indiscipline, based on bragging on physical prowess, cannot go unpunished.

No one has a right to take away another's precious human life. The right to life is a God-given and constitutionally enshrined right.

Violence should never be resorted to for dispute resolution.

The courts should express their displeasure in the much increasing loss of life due to violence by passing appropriate sentences.

In seeking to match the offence to the offender, while at the same time ensuring that the societal interests are met, we will temper justice with mercy in due recognition of your age. It is hoped, that, during the time you will spend at Correctional Services you will be rehabilitated and moulded into a more responsible citizen. You are sentenced as follows:

18 years imprisonment.

Law Portal
Zimbabwe

HMT19-20 - THE STATE vs CLAYTON DEKAURENDO

Corroborative Evidence re: Admissions, Unchallenged Evidence, Right to Examine Witnesses & Audi Alteram Partem Rule

Physical Evidence re: Approach

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence, Causation and Inferential Reasoning re: Key Witness, Eyewitness & Res Gestae

Findings of Fact re: Witness Testimony, Candidness with the Court and Deceptive or Misleading Evidence

Corroborative Evidence re: Approach and Principle that Lies Told By Accused Amount to Corroboration of State Witnesses

Defence of Diminished Mental Responsibility or Diminished Capacity re: Substance Use, Intoxication and Insanity

Findings of Fact re: Witness Testimony, Candidness with the Court and Deceptive or Misleading Evidence

Defence of Diminished Mental Responsibility or Diminished Capacity re: Provocation iro Approach and Self-Control

Defence Outline, State Outline re: Approach, Testimonial Discrepancies and Prevaricative or Inconsistent Evidence

Approach, Rehearsed & Fabricated Defences & Obligation of Court to make findings on all defences proffered by Accused

Defence of Diminished Mental Responsibility or Diminished Capacity re: Provocation iro Witchcraft & Cultural Beliefs

Indictment or Charge re: Charge Sheet, Framing of Charges, Essential Elements, Causation, Intention & Competent Verdict

Murder and Permissible or Competent Verdicts re: Approach, Intent, Motive, Corpse, Cause of Death & Inquest Proceedings

Defence of Abandonment, Claim of Right, Mistake of Fact or Law and Establishment of Mens Rea or Intention

Findings of Fact re: Assessment of Evidence, Inferences, the Cardinal Rule of Logic and Evidentiary Concessions

Murder re: Murder with Constructive Intent, Foreseeability Intention, Reckless Conduct or Dolus Eventualis

Sentencing re: Murder iro Murder with Constructive Intent

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

Sentencing re: Approach iro Co-Accused, Gender and Age Considerations & the Principle of Equality of Treatment

Sentencing re: Approach iro First Offenders

Sentencing re: Approach iro Incarceration Conditions and the Effect of Pre-trial Detention and Constitutional Rights Violations

Sentencing re: Approach iro Contritional Compensation & Conduct of Accused Ex Post Facto Commission of the Offence

Children Violations

Categories

Law Portal Zimbabwe

HMT19-20 - THE STATE vs CLAYTON DEKAURENDO

Categories

Your Donation.

Law Portal
Zimbabwe