The accused is charged with the crime of murder as defined in section 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].
The accused pleaded not guilty to the allegations, that, on 23 October, he unlawfully caused the death of Modester Chikaka by pouring paraffin over her body and setting her alight with the result that Modester Chikaka suffered severe burns all over her body which in turn led to her death on 26 October 2011.
The accused elected to give a Defence Outline in support of his plea of denial.
The upshot of his Defence Outline was to the effect that the deceased poured paraffin on herself and set herself alight and that he did not pour paraffin upon the deceased nor setting her alight. He outlined that he confronted the deceased in connection with her “suspected numerous extra marital affairs” since the deceased was his wife. He further outlined that the deceased in fact poured paraffin from a stove upon herself and “somehow” went ahead to and lit herself despite the accused's attempt to stop the deceased from doing so.
He stated that the deceased, after setting herself alight, tried to “embrace the accused person intending to cause harm to him but he managed to slip away going out of the room.”
He outlined that he assisted the deceased to “put off the fire by pouring some water on her at the water tape which was near the house.”
He also further “extinguished the fire which was burning inside the house in question.”
In manner of speaking, the accused's defence was simply, that, the deceased intentionally brought about her death, or committed suicide, by pouring paraffin upon and setting her body alight.
The State opened its case by tendering and producing, by consent of the accused, two affidavits sworn to, respectively, by doctors Ndekwere and Munhumeso.
The affidavit by Dr Ndekwere was produced as exhibit 1.
He examined the now deceased following her transfer from Chivhu Hospital to Harare Hospital on 23 October 2011 around 10:20 hours. He observed and commented that the deceased had suffered 76% open flame burns on her torso, lower, and upper limbs, as well as on the neck. The doctor recommended that the patient should be admitted in the Burns Ward at the hospital.
Exhibit 2 was also a medical affidavit prepared by Dr Munhumeso who examined the now deceased on 23 October 2011 around 0300 hours at Chivhu Hospital. He observed that the now deceased had sustained paraffin burns on the chest, abdomen, and both upper limbs. He stablilized the patient and caused the patient's transfer to Harare Central Hospital for further management after noting the seriousness of the burns which he assessed to be about 35% surface burns.
Another exhibit produced by consent was the accused's confirmed warned and cautioned statement as exhibit 3.
The statement was confirmed by the magistrate on 16 November 2011 following its recording on 2 November 2011.
The accused's statement was to the following effect, quoted verbatim:
“I have understood the caution, but I am denying the charges. On the day in question, I arrived at Modester Chikaka's house at around 0130hrs. She opened the door and I went inside the house and set on a chair. After greetings, I then told her that I wanted to discuss some stories, which were circulating in town, of her affairs with other men. I told her that I was not happy about that because it was embarrassing me.
After I had told my story, that is when Modester Chikaka woke up from the bed where she was sleeping and put on her skirt and blouse, sat on a chair on the other side of the table. She did not respond to any of the questions I put to her.
She got up from where she was seated and picked up a paraffin stove, which was next to the bed, opened it, and poured the paraffin on her clothes. She put the stove on the floor. I then stood up and went to where she was after I had noticed that she was looking for some matches. When I grabbed her, she was already having some matches in her hand. I got hold of her hands so that she could not lit the matches.
We struggled with each other in the house until I managed to take the matches from her.
She went and sat on a chair which she had been sitting on and I also sat on a chair. We spent about ten to fifteen minutes while I was questioning her about the story but she was not responding.
Whilst I was sitting, Modester Chikaka got up from where she was seated and picked another matches and struck a matchstick before I got close to where she was and lit herself and embraced me whilst she was screaming. I opened the door while she was still embracing me and she was crying. When I opened the door, the fire burned heavily. She then ran to the tap where she poured some water on her.
I followed her to the tap, helped her to extinguish the fire.
I then went into the house to extinguish fire which was burning there and that was when Modester Chikaka informed her neighbours that I had burned her. I did not want to dispute with her because it was a waste of time. I then boarded Cst Miti's car and went to the hospital. We further visited the police station where I was arrested and Modester Chikaka was taken to the hospital.”
It is important to note the following significant points and conclusions from the statement:
(i) The deceased had already retired to bed at the time that the accused arrived at the deceased's house around 0130 hours. The deceased opened the door, let the accused inside, and the latter sat on a chair.
(ii) The accused confronted the deceased to discuss rumours circulating in Chivhu town, that the deceased was having affairs with other men; such rumours being an embarrassment to the accused and over which he was unhappy.
(iii) The deceased did not respond to the accusations, but, instead, left the bed where she had gone back to sleep, put on her skirt and blouse and sat on a chair on the other side of the table from which the accused sat.
(iv) The deceased, without saying anything, stood up from the chair, picked up a paraffin stove which was next to the bed, opened it, and poured the paraffin on her clothes.
(v) The accused stood up from his chair after noticing that the deceased was looking for some matches. He managed to grab the deceased's hands which were holding some matches so that she would not light the matches. The accused and the deceased struggled with each other and the accused succeeded in taking away the matches from the deceased.
(vi) After the accused had dispossessed the deceased of the matches, the two returned to their sitting positions on the chairs which they had been sitting on before the struggle for possession of the matches.
(vii) For the next ten to fifteen minutes, the accused continued to interrogate the deceased in regard to the same rumours, that the deceased had boyfriends. The deceased did not respond to the accusations.
(viii) As the accused was still seated, the deceased got up from where she was seated, picked up another “matches” struck a match stick and lit herself before the accused could get close to where the deceased was.
(ix) The deceased, after setting herself ablaze, embraced the accused whilst she was screaming. The accused was able to open the door as the deceased was still in an embrace on him and she was crying.
(x) When the door was opened, the fire burned heavily. The deceased then ran to the tap where she poured water on herself. The accused followed and assisted the deceased to extinguish the fire.
(xi) The accused returned to the house, went inside, and extinguished the fire which was burning there. It was then that the deceased informed her neighbours that the accused had burnt her.
(xii) The accused did not dispute the accusation because to him it was a waste of time.
It was therefore clear, on the accused's account, as given to the police, that, the deceased and the accused were engaged in a disagreeable discussion when the tragedy took place.
The accused's explanation to the police was therefore simply, that, when he confronted the deceased about rumoured affairs which the deceased allegedly had with other men the deceased neither denied the accusation nor admitted them. Her response was to open the paraffin stove, pour paraffin upon herself, and attempting to burn herself before being disabled by the accused where after she sat back on the same chair that she had been seated on before her failed attempt to burn herself.
Another follow up interrogation of 10–15 minutes resulted in the deceased reaching for another box of matches and setting herself alight before embracing the accused whilst screaming.
The accused opened the door to the house/room whilst the deceased still held him in an embrace. The deceased then ran to the water tap and poured water on herself with the accused following and assisting her. The deceased reported that the accused had burnt her, an accusation which the accused did not contest because to do so would have been waste of time.
At this stage, it is necessary to note, that, the accused's confirmed statement, whose contents have been outlined, will, as provided in section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, be taken as evidence against the accused, there being no challenge to its admissibility or authenticity.
Accordingly, the statement will be considered together with all other evidence adduced by the State in assessing the sufficiency of evidence led in support of the charge or allegations against the accused.
The State also led evidence from three witnesses, namely, Tawanda Miti, Nyasha Tsopotsa, and Sekai Guramatunhu. The summary of the evidence of these witnesses was as outlined hereunder:
Tawanda Miti
Is a police officer with CID and is based at Southerton Police Station, Harare. When the incident in this matter took place, he was stationed at Chivhu police station. He knew both the deceased and accused as lovers. The deceased and the witness shared the same residence where they lived in adjoining rooms sharing the same veranda. The residence was in the form of a standard block with partitioned rooms each room with its entrance door which was accessed from the veranda. When one is standing on the veranda, the doors to the rooms lead into the rooms from the veranda. The deceased occupied one room at the furthest end. The witness used the next two rooms after the deceased's room and the fourth room door led into the common washroom and toilet. Behind the toilet was a water tap.
There was no dispute as to the make-up of the residence and the rooms.
He testified that he had retired to bed with his wife when he woke up around 2:00am to screaming by a person calling out his name. He got out of bed, opened the door, and got out of his room. He then saw fire flames inside the deceased's room. He was shocked by the spectacle. He then saw the accused arriving on the veranda and he ordered the accused to put out the fire. He next observed the deceased coming from behind the residence in the direction where there was a water tap. He observed burns on the deceased.
He then heard the deceased to say to the accused: “why did you not pour paraffin on yourself as well since you said that you wanted both of us to die?”
The deceased went on to tell the witness that the accused had poured paraffin on her and lit her up.
The deceased also said that the accused had the matches on him, to which the accused responded that the deceased had poured paraffin on herself.
The witness, at this stage, instructed his wife to cover the deceased with a blanket after where the witness provided his vehicle and ferried the deceased and accused to the police station where the accused was placed under arrest and the deceased ferried to hospital.
The State counsel asked the witness to repeat the exact words which the deceased reportedly uttered to the witness when the witness came out of his room to check on what was happening. The witness said:
“She said accused took paraffin from a paraffin stove and poured on her. He then took a matchstick, lit it, and threw it at me. She then went out of the house to pour water on myself whilst screaming.”
The witness further repeated, that, the deceased, when coming from the tap, said: “why did you not set yourself ablaze too since you wanted both of us to die? Why have you killed me?”
Asked whether the accused responded, the witness responded that the accused answered: “I did not kill you. You poured paraffin on yourself.”
The witness said that the accused proceeded to extinguish the fire in the house after coming on to the veranda from the direction of the tap as per the witness assumption.
Under cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not know for a fact as to who poured paraffin on the deceased. He also did not witness the accused setting the deceased on fire.
The witness was asked: “You did not hear her calling out that accused had set her ablaze whilst you were in your room?” and he responded; “She was saying that. She said so as she called out for my help.”
The witness agreed that in his witness statement, recorded on 3 November 2011, he did not mention that the deceased had shouted that the accused had set her ablaze.
The witness said that the omission could have been a result of oversight.
The witness agreed that he could not deny that the accused assisted the deceased to douse off the flames at the tap.
The witness agreed that the accused denied that he had set the deceased ablaze when the deceased was making the accusation.
He agreed that the accused had responded that the deceased poured paraffin on herself.
The witness said that prior to hearing the screaming which woke him up, he did not hear any commotion whilst he was asleep.
He said that the accused was searched at the charge office and found to be having a box of matches in his pocket. The witness agreed that in his recorded statement he stated that the accused explained his possession of the matches by saying that he took the box of matches from the deceased.
The court's assessment of the evidence of this witness was that he was an honest and impressive witness who gave a simple narration of the events which he witnessed. The cross examination of the witness was not eventful because he maintained his story.
His evidence was clear, that, the deceased accused the accused person of pouring paraffin upon her and setting her ablaze with matches. His evidence was equally clear that the accused responded to the allegation by denying the accusation and instead accusing the deceased of having poured paraffin on herself and set herself ablaze.
It was not suggested to the witness that the deceased did not name the person who had harmed her. What was put to the witness in cross-examination was that the accused denied the allegation.
It was not denied that the deceased went further to ask the accused as to why he had not equally poured paraffin upon himself so that he dies together with the deceased as he had wished or declared.
It was not denied that the deceased uttered the words: “why have you killed me?”
The court, having been impressed by the demeanour of the witness, his self-confidence, and standing unshaken under cross-examination, accepted the evidence of the witness as reliable.
The next witness was Nyasha Tsopotsa, the wife of the last witness.
She testified to having been asleep with the last witness when she heard screaming sounds and a door being forcibly opened. The first witness woke up as well, but, before either of them had left their room, the witness heard the sound of footsteps outside going in the direction of the water tap. The person screaming was calling out her husband, the first witness name.
The first witness went out of their room first before she followed.
When she exited their room, she saw the deceased behind the toilet door dressed only in her petticoat which was stuck to her body. The deceased had visible burns. She saw the accused by the door of the deceased's room.
She heard the deceased saying to the accused: “Dai wandipedza. Wabvira kundishungurudza, wandipisa” which words translated into English mean: “You should just have finished me. You have been persistent in harassing me. You set me on fire.”
She heard the accused to respond saying: “You set yourself on fire.”
She testified that the last witness ordered her to find something to cover the deceased with. She obliged and took one of the deceased's bed sheets and covered her with it.
The first witness, the deceased, and the accused then drove away in the first witness's vehicle.
When asked to recite the first words which she heard the deceased to say, she responded and said in Shona: “Maiwe ndofa” which was translated as: “Mother, I am dying!”
She said that she heard screaming and the door opening at the same time followed by footsteps which proceeded in the direction of the tap.
When the deceased was screaming, she was shouting: “Father of Brendon” in reference to the first witness.
When the witness came out of her room, she said that she saw the deceased talking to the accused person accusing him of having set her alight.
The witness remained at home when the deceased and the accused drove away from the scene.
Under cross examination, the witness agreed that she did not hear the deceased to say that someone was killing her. She said that she heard the deceased saying: “Mother, I am dying.”
The witness said that she did not know what had happened prior to this.
The witness reiterated that when she got out of the house, she heard the deceased saying to the accused: “You poured paraffin on me and burnt me.”
The witness said that she could not dispute that the accused assisted in dousing the deceased of the fire burning her because by the time she got to the scene, the deceased was behind the toilet door accusing the accused of pouring paraffin on her and setting her blaze.
The witness agreed that the accused disputed or denied the allegation.
The witness was not re-examined nor did the court seek any clarifications on her evidence.
The court, as with the last witness, was impressed by the demeanour of the witness. In fact, nothing eventful or new came out of the cross-examination of the witness. Her evidence was largely corroborative of that of the last witness.
Significantly, the accused's counsel, in cross examination, did not deny that the deceased made accusations pointing to the accused as having poured paraffin on her and set her light.
The witness evidence, that the deceased accused the accused of persistent harassment, and that the deceased said that you should have finished me, were not disputed either.
The court therefore accepted that the deceased uttered the words testified to by the witness.
The court also noted that the accused denied the accusations.
The last witness was Sekai Guvamatunhu, a police constable who was one of the duty officers at Chivhu Police Station when the deceased was brought to the police station by the first witness who made a report concerning the deceased having suffered burns.
The deceased was inside the first witness's car.
The witness proceeded to the vehicle, which was parked outside the charge office, and observed the deceased. She noted that the deceased had severe burns. She suggested that the deceased should be ferried to the hospital urgently.
When the witness tried to speak to the deceased, the accused came over to the witness to stop her from speaking to the witness giving the reason that the deceased had been burnt.
The witness accompanied the deceased to the hospital in the first witness's vehicle.
The witness evidence was not contentious, and, in any event, was relevant in respect of completing the chain of events. Nothing really turned on it. The court took and accepted the evidence as given.
The State closed its case....,.
The accused elected to give evidence.
He testified, on oath, that, the deceased was his wife of five (5) years. He denied killing her. On the fateful night, he said that he arrived at the deceased's room around 0100 hours, knocked at the door, and was let in. They greeted each other. He sat on a chair whilst the deceased returned to bed. He then told her that he wanted to speak to the deceased about rumours going around in town and being peddled by other people.
The deceased got out of bed and put on her skirt and blouse. She then pulled a chair and sat across the table from where he sat.
The accused said that he accosted the deceased of being in the habit of frequenting bars in his absence. He told the deceased that she had been seen by his brother's sons, called Kuda Muza and Chivizhe. He then chided her that her frequenting of bars was a source of embarrassment for him.
The deceased did not respond.
He said that the deceased suddenly got up and said that she would set herself on fire. She was working her way to the primus stove as she spoke. The accused had bought for her the primus stove to use in the event that there was no electricity supply. The deceased then poured paraffin on herself, let go of the stove, and got hold of matches.
He quickly grabbed both her hands to disable her from striking the matches. He then firmly gripped the hand which held the match box, took away the match-box and slipped it into his pocket.
He said that he asked the deceased as to why she wanted to set herself alight. The deceased did not respond, but returned to sit on the chair that she had risen from.
After the deceased sat down, he said that he asked her, again, as to why she wanted to set herself on fire and yet all that he was doing was to reprimand her; which was something that did not justify her to set herself on fire.
The deceased did not respond.
He said that he tried to telephone the deceased's sisters and aunt but their phones did not go through. He then sat in his chair for some time apprehensive that the deceased could do something like burning herself. He said that he dozed off because he suddenly heard the sound of a chair moving.
He saw the deceased take another match box.
This was about 30 minutes later after dozing off when he woke up to the sound of a moving chair. He stood up but the deceased lit the matches and set herself ablaze. She then directed the match box towards the accused's bossom. The deceased tried to light the matches in order to set the accused alight but it did not light up.
The accused said that he was surprised because he thought that the paraffin was no longer flammable.
The accused said that he thought about how he could put out the fire. He wore a nylon t/shirt and could not use it. There was a bed with blankets next to where the deceased was but he could not use the blankets because the deceased ran towards him and she appeared as if she wanted to grab him by the neck. She however held his arm in a firm grip as she screamed. He said that he suffered some abrasions. He then said:
“I realised that the fire intensity had increased and I said lets got to the tap so that I put out the fire. She went out first. I followed and said kneel down so that I pour water on you. I then ran some water over her.”
The accused said that Tawanda Miti, the first State witness, and his wife, woke up as he was by the water tap.
Tawanda Miti then said that something was burning and gave the accused a bucket with water telling him to put out the fire. The accused then noted that there were clothes burning on the floor and he stamped on the flames with his feet. He thereafter exited the deceased's room and found the deceased telling Tawanda Miti that he, the accused, had set her on fire.
The deceased was crying as she narrated her ordeal to Tawanda Miti.
The accused said that he then denied burning the deceased and the deceased kept quiet.
He said that the deceased only called out to Tawanda Miti when she was coming from the tap and not before.
When asked by his counsel to suggest any reason why the deceased would have accused him of setting her on fire, the accused responded: “I think it is because of the way I had spoken to her about her behaviour.”
Under cross examination, the accused admitted that he heard the deceased telling Tawanda Miti that the accused had burnt her. He however said that this was said after the fire had been extinguished. He also agreed that the deceased said: “why did you not also burn yourself and die too!” He said that she however was lying, and that, considering her state, he saw no useful purpose in denying.
He said that her utterances, pointing him out as her assailant, were intended to fix him.
The court sought clarifications, on whether the accused saw the place from where the deceased got the matches which the deceased used. He said that he suspected that the box must have been by the of corner table where the deceased sat. The two of them sat 1–2 metres apart. He said that the deceased was his second wife.
The above summarised evidence was, in the main, the accused's trail of events.
The court must decide whether, on the totality of the evidence, the State proved the charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Firstly, commenting on the accused's demeanour, he showed some degree of annoyance and irritability when giving evidence and answers in cross-examination. The court got the impression that the accused considered the trial, and his being asked to give an account of events, as an unnecessary bother. He appeared not to be a concerned person with the proceedings - yet the victim was his second wife as per his testimony. The accused's demeanour was adjudged not to be impressive.
It is common cause that there was no independent witness to testify as to how the deceased ended up with the burns. The case falls to be determined on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
In this regard, the principles set out in the case of R v Blom 1939 AD 188 remain authoritative and continue to be followed in this jurisdiction.
In Zacharia Amons Simango v S SC42-14 and Abraham Mbovora v S SC75-14, the Supreme Court held the principles in R v Blom 1939 AD 188 to still hold good in this jurisdiction.
GOWORA JA, in Amons Simango v S SC42-14, stated that there are two cardinal rules which govern the use of circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial, being:
“(1) The inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the proven facts.
(2) The proved facts should be such that they exclude every possible inference from them save the one to be drawn.”
As regards the material facts as to what happened at the critical time, it is not disputed that the deceased suffered paraffin burns resulting from her being on fire.
The issue for determination is whether or not the deceased poured paraffin upon, and burnt herself, or it was the accused who sat her alight after pouring paraffin on her.
The State evidence, which was not disputed, was that the deceased pointed out to the accused as the perpetrator who poured paraffin on her and set her ablaze.
It is also not disputed that the accused, prior to the disputed incident with regards how it happened, had come to the deceased's place in the early hours of the morning. The accused accosted the deceased on allegations that the deceased was frequenting bars in his absence and of infidelity.
Such accusations involve matters of emotion; moreso on the part of the accuser who invariably requires answers and confessions.
If, as the accused alleged, the deceased chose to keep quiet and not deny the allegations, it is unlikely that the accused would have taken kindly to this.
The court reasoned, that, the discussion between the two could not have been an amicable one and the accused, in fact, was, in all probability, incensed because he allegedly had evidence of his relatives having informed him.
The accused sought to give the court the impression that he was simply engaged in a mutual and amicable discussion. The court reasoned, that, the interrogation of the deceased could not have been, and, in all probability, was not amicable.
The conduct of the accused had to be looked at within this background founded on probabilities.
The accused's evidence was that the deceased did not respond to the allegations which he made against her but chose to behave as described by the accused, that is: “she suddenly got up and said I will set myself on fire.”
Such reaction and conduct was, in the view of the court, illogical and improbable to a point that it can safely be said not to have happened.
In fact, what the accused seeks the court to accept was a scenario where the deceased was simply asked as to why she went to bars in the absence of the accused and she responded by pouring paraffin upon and setting herself alight.
When assessing evidence, it is trite that the accused's explanation or version of evidence should not be rejected for merely being improbable. It will be rejected only if it is so inherently improbable that it could not reasonably be said to be true: see Shusha v S [2011] ZASCA 1712.
In the reasoning of the court, it is inherently improbable that where parties are involved in a love or marriage relationship, and one party accuses the other party of improper behaviour and infidelity, the accused party does not answer the allegations, but, instead, suddenly adopts a dangerous manoeuvre to inflict harm or injury on themselves.
The inherent improbability in the accused narration of events would need to be considered together with other proven facts in drawing the appropriate inference.
The undisputed evidence of State witnesses was that the deceased named the accused as the person who had poured paraffin on her and set her ablaze.
The complainant was heard screaming and calling out to the neighbours. She did not call out to the accused person.
If, indeed, the deceased had burnt herself and the accused had nothing to do with it, assuming that she was crying out for help because of pain, she would have been expected to call out to the person who was nearest to, and in her presence, to assist her or come to her aid.
It was most improbable that the deceased would, in the process of seeking assistance, have reached for people far away from her.
The accused, in his warned and cautioned statement, stated that he opened the door whilst the deceased was holding on to him in an embrace and crying - the accused does not appear to have suffered any injury to his person or damage to his clothing. He stated therein, at the time, that, when he opened the door, the fire was burning heavily.
He indicated therein, that, the deceased ran to the tap where she poured water on herself and that he followed and assisted her to extinguish the fire.
There was a variance with his evidence in chief because when he testified, he said that it was him who suggested to the deceased that they should go to the tap so that he extinguishes the fire. He further said that when he followed to the tap, he asked the deceased to kneel down so that he pours water on her.
The impression which one gets from the testimony is that the accused went all out to assist the deceased and even suggested how the fire could be extinguished.
He was, on his evidence, the savior.
It then becomes mind boggling that immediately following the accused's acts of benevolence towards the deceased, the deceased would immediately turn against her benefactor, after being assisted, and accuse him of burning her.
When a court assesses evidence, it does not treat each individual piece of evidence as an isolated component. Pieces of evidence constitute a mosaic of proof. Doubts in relation to one piece of evidence naturally arises if one picks and chooses to focus on individual evidential pieces. Doubts may be removed when all pieces of evidence are considered together taking into account probabilities.
Whilst the court critically interrogates and subjects each piece of evidence to examination, it is, in the final analysis, necessary to then consider the mosaic as a collective body of evidence. If evidence is not considered together, the court runs the risk of failing to pick the wood from the trees.
In R v Sibanda & Others 1965 (4) SA 241 (RA), BEADLE CJ…, stated, when dealing with circumstantial evidence, as follows;
“The degree of certainty with which the individual facts must be proved in criminal cases must always depend on the probative value of the individual facts themselves. Generally speaking, when a large number of facts, taken together, point to the guilt of an accused, it is not necessary that each fact should be taken in isolation and its existence proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if there are reasonable ground for taking these facts into consideration and all the facts, taken together, prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In S v Chabalala 2003 (1) SACR 134 (SCA)…, it is stated:
“…,. The correct approach is to weigh up all the elements which point towards the guilt of the accused against all those which are indicative of his innocence, taking proper account of inherent strengths and weaknesses, probabilities and improbabilities on both sides; and, having done so, to decide whether the balance weighs so heavily in favour of the State as to exclude any reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt.
The result may prove that one scrap of evidence, or one defect in the case for either party (such as the failure to call a material witness concerning an identification parade) was decisive but that can only be an ex-post facto determination and a trial court (and counsel) should avoid the temptation to latch on to one (apparently) obvious aspect without assessing it within the context of the full picture presented in evidence.
Once that approach is applied to the evidence in the present matter, the solution becomes clear.”
The upshot of the dicta in the above cases is that the court should always approach the assessment of evidence holistically and not nitpick aspects or components of evidence without relating them. It is the totality of the evidence which must be considered, and, a founding of guilt or innocence should not be based upon a consideration of facts treated in isolation but collectively.
In casu, the only factors indicative of the accused's innocence were his denial that it was not him who had committed the felony when the deceased pointed him out. He did not deny that the accusation against him was made.
There would appear to have been no logical reason for the deceased to have named the accused and attributed the pouring of paraffin and lighting of the deceased to the accused.
The reasoning of the court, in this regard, has been explained.
Had the deceased awoken to find herself on fire, she would, in all probability, have suspected the accused as he was the only person in the room. However, in casu, the events took place when the deceased was awake and there would, on the proven facts, have been no compelling reason for the deceased to attempt a suicide and attribute the act to the accused.
Counsel have raised the question of res gestae and argued that the evidential facts disqualify the application of the doctrine.
The defence counsel argued that there was no spontaneity in the deceased's exclamation pointing out to the accused as the assailant. For his part, the State counsel, in his closing submissions, indicated that he stood by his submissions in which he had earlier conceded to the defence application for discharge.
The court found the State's approach to be wholly unhelpful.
The State counsel did not even comment on the defence evidence and the probabilities.
It goes without saying, then, that the court does not agree with the veiled concession by the State that the State evidence was inadequate to support the charge.
The unfortunate attitude adopted by the State counsel appeared to be that of saying: “I have already made up my mind that the State has not proved a prima facie case. The court can proceed to make a contrary determination if it wishes.”
Such attitude and approach is improper.
Counsel needed to address the further evidence adduced after the dismissal of the application for discharge of the accused.
Res gestae should be applied taking into account the circumstances of each case.
In casu, the undisputed evidence was that the deceased screamed out and footsteps were heard proceeding to the tap, and, immediately on returning from the tap, the deceased made the accusation that the cause of the fiasco was the accused.
To hold, as argued by the defence, that, the deceased should have exclaimed that the accused (by name) had burnt her at the time of the burning would be to adopt an armchair approach.
The deceased named the accused, at the first opportune time, after she was no longer on fire. It cannot be said that there was no spontaneity in the exclamation.
The court has already dealt with the issue of the absence of the post-mortem report.
The issues in the case were not that the deceased could have met her death through other causes. The issue was whether the accused is the one who poured paraffin on the deceased and set her ablaze resulting in injuries from which the deceased died.
In such a case, a postmortem would simply be there to give credence to the admitted fact, and its absence is not therefore fatal to the State case.
Having considered all the evidence holistically, and, properly guided by case law on the approach to dealing with circumstantial evidence, the court determined that the only reasonable inference to be drawn on the evidence was that of the guilt of the accused.
The court determined, that, it was the accused who set the deceased ablaze after pouring paraffin on her, and, that, when he did so, he foresaw or realized a real risk or possibility that his conduct may cause death and continued in that conduct regardless.
The accused is therefore found guilty as charged under section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]: that is, murder with constructive intent.
