Sithandekile
Nkomo was a truthful witness who was worth to be believed. Her evidence was
corroborated on all material points by other witnesses who testified for the State….,.
Detective
Assistant Inspector Albert Zhou gave his evidence well and is worth to be
believed. He was not shaken under cross examination.
The
court finds that all the ...
Sithandekile
Nkomo was a truthful witness who was worth to be believed. Her evidence was
corroborated on all material points by other witnesses who testified for the State….,.
Detective
Assistant Inspector Albert Zhou gave his evidence well and is worth to be
believed. He was not shaken under cross examination.
The
court finds that all the State witnesses testified well. Their evidence is
accepted. Wherever their evidence conflicts with that of the accused persons
the court prefers theirs.
All
the accused persons fared badly in their respective cases. They contradicted
themselves and were clearly being untruthful in numerous respects. They are not
worth to be believed.
Accused
1 tried to distance himself from the scene and told the court that he was at
his rural home in Plumtree on 24 January 2009 which was contrary to what he had
said in his Defence Outline wherein he had said he was in Tsholotsho. In his
confirmed extra curial statement he confirmed being at the scene assaulting a
woman with a tin of baked beans. That is where the truth lies. That is
confirmed by the victim of the assault, Pauline Mpofu. The court has already
found that he was at the scene and delivered the fatal blow.
The
second accused denied ever being at Tashas Supermarket in Pelandaba on the day
in question. He said he was at his house
in Gwabalanda contradicting what is in his Defence Outline wherein he alleged
that he was in South Africa on 24 January 2009 which is clearly false. The
truth is found in his confirmed extra curial statement wherein he stated that
he went with his co-accused to steal from the supermarket.
The
third accused maintained his alibi that he was in South Africa on 24 January
2009. His story is completely false. There is overwhelming evidence that he was
in the country. He teamed up with his co-accused and went to Tashas Supermarket
Pelandaba and fired a shot from his pistol when members of the public wanted to
apprehend him and Accused 1. He had gone into the shop with Accused 1. Both of
them were armed with firearms.
The
fourth accused's story had a ring of truth in it. He, however, was untruthful
by suggesting that they teamed up to go to Pelandaba for a braai. The truth was
that they had gone there to rob Tashas Supermarket of some money. Sithandekile
Nkomo told the court that he told her that they had gone to make money through
robbery. He tried to underplay the role he played when he, in fact, played a
vital role of driving the get-away car from the scene. That was a role which
needed a very experienced driver. The accused is an experienced driver since he
is in the business of transporting goods from people working in South Africa to
their homes in this country. Umalayitsha. That seems to be the reason why he
had to drive the car although the owner was present. He had returned to the car
after seeing his uncle at the shop. He
would have drive his car if there had been no prior arrangement that the fourth
accused would drive it when getting away from the scene.
