MALABA DCJ:
This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court sitting as an appellate
court dismissing an appeal from the decision of the Magistrates Court against
conviction and sentence for rape. The appellant was convicted of rape as
defined in s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Cap
9:23] by the Regional Magistrates Court on 25 September 2007. The
allegations were that he had, on 4 September 2007 had sexual intercourse with a
77 year old woman, Evenesi Kanyimbo, without her consent. The appellant
was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment of which three (3) years were
suspended for five (5) years on the usual conditions of good behaviour.
He appealed to the High Court against both conviction and sentence. The
appeal against conviction was on four grounds. The first ground was that
the learned trial magistrate misdirected herself by convicting the appellant in
light of the fact that the appellant gave a version of events which was
reasonably possibly true and was not demonstrated to be false by the evidence
led during trial.
The second ground was that the learned trial magistrate
appeared to have unduly placed too much reliance on the age of the complainant
and the fact that she broke down during her testimony. The third ground was
that the learned trial magistrate ought not to have placed any reliance on the
medical report in arriving at the decision to convict. The fourth ground
was that the learned trial magistrate ignored the fact that beside
complainant's word, no other acceptable evidence was adduced to prove that the
appellant raped the complainant.
The appeal against sentence was on the ground that the
sentence was unduly harsh and induced a sense of shock. The allegation
was that the learned magistrate misdirected herself in the assessment of the
sentence by placing less weight on the personal circumstances of the appellant
particularly that he was a youthful first offender aged 18 years at the time of
the commission of the offence.
It was also alleged that the learned magistrate over-emphasised the age of the
complainant when there were no particularly aggravating features in the manner
the rape was committed which would have justified a sentence more severe than
sentences in similar cases.
The court a quo was not persuaded by the submissions on behalf of the
appellant in respect of the grounds of appeal against both conviction and
sentence. The facts of the case are as follows:
On 4 September 2007, complainant was collecting maize cobs in her employer's
field and putting them in sacks to form heaps. At about that time she saw
the appellant who she knew as a resident of the compound approach her. He
was in the company of a young boy, Gift Moyo aged ten years. When the
appellant got to where she was, he told the boy to go and tend cattle in the
bush. The appellant remained behind and proposed love to her. She
turned down the proposal but the appellant suddenly bent down and got hold of
both her legs pressing them together and pulled her off balance. She fell
to the ground and the appellant quickly got on top of her and pulled up her
dress and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. As the
appellant overpowered her, he uttered words to the effect that he wanted to
effect a deep penetration to feel her body. After making a couple of
sexual movements, he withdrew his male organ and stood up, leaving her lying on
the ground. He told her to get up and go, threatening to kill her should
she report to anyone what had happened. She said she immediately left the
scene and proceeded to her home. Later the same day, she went to her son
and reported that the appellant had raped her. The two then proceed to
Shamva Police and reported the matter.
The complainant was examined by a doctor at Shamva Hospital on 6 September
2007. The medical report established that she was sexually inactive and
had reached menopause. There were bruises on her perineum and her
vestibule was torn. The doctor concluded that penetration had been
effected after some force was exerted on the complainant's body and
genitalia. He also observed that her clothes were soiled.
The complainant's son Kindon Chinomwe gave evidence to the
effect that he was approached by his mother on 4 September 2007 at his
workplace. She reported to him that the appellant had raped her at the
field. She looked distressed at the time and her clothes were soiled.
He suggested that there was nothing much he could do except to report the case
to the police. He took the mother to the police and reported a rape case
against the appellant.
The appellant's story was that the complainant had falsely implicated him in
the commission of the offence. He said the reason for the alleged false
allegation against him was that he assaulted the complainant at the field at
the time she alleged he raped her. According to him, he had been herding cattle
in the company of Gift Moyo and his elder brother, Last Muhamba. He then
saw cattle which had moved into the field in which complainant was collecting
maize cobs. He, together with Gift, went to drive away the cattle from
the fields.
The complainant approached him and shouted insults at him. He moved away
but the complainant followed him still shouting insults until she mentioned his
parents' private parts. He said he got angry and slapped her once in the
face. He left the complainant at the field but was later approached by
the Police on allegations that he had raped the complainant.
The appellant called Gift Moyo to testify on his behalf. The evidence of
Gift Moyo was inherently contradictory. He at first said that he
approached complainant together with appellant who struck complainant twice on
the face accusing her of having stolen maize. He, however, later said in
his evidence that he was on his way home and found the appellant and complainant
together. He first said that he witnessed the assault from a distance of
6 metres but later said it was 15 metres away. He did not see
complainant following the appellant shouting insults at him.
The appellant also called his elder brother Last. His evidence was also
riddled with inconsistencies. At first he said that he heard the
complainant crying from a distance of 100 metres, where she was with the
appellant. He at the same time said, he saw Gift approach the complainant
and the appellant when the appellant had said that he had approached the
complainant together with Gift. He said when he heard the complainant
crying he went to where the complainant was and saw the appellant strike her
twice. On the other hand, he said that he saw the appellant strike the
complainant twice before he got to where they were while at the same time
saying he could not see what was happening because there was grass obstructing
his vision. According to the witness, the appellant was holding complainant
with one hand while slapping her with the other when he got to where the two
were.
The learned magistrate examined the evidence of the
complainant relating to the commission of the offence and the identification of
the appellant as the rapist. She found the complainant to be a credible
witness. She also found that her evidence on the unlawful sexual
intercourse was corroborated by the finding in the medical report. She
also found that the fact that she had the courage to disclose to her own son
that she had been raped was supportive of her credibility. She analysed
the evidence of the respondent on the assault and found that there were serious
contradictions which convinced her that the version of the appellant was
false. She said the following:
“It is important to note here that this witness never made
mention of the insults episode which forms the basis of the accused's
defence. He talked of the stealing of maize as the reason for the
assault, which was news to this court.
Further his evidence was at variance with the
accused's. Accused asserted that he slapped the complainant once, yet
this witness said she was slapped twice and he said he was only 6 metres from
where he observed accused slapping complainant twice. Now the variance in
their evidence makes it difficult to believe that the alleged assault ever
happened because if they were indeed together then their evidence was supposed
to be the same or at least similar. To this end, I am inclined to believe
the complainant's evidence that this witness had been sent away by the accused
before the rape happened. This is why this witness said under
cross-examination he could not dispute that the rape occurred because he had
not been present all the time.”
When it comes to the evidence of Last Muhamba, the learned Regional Magistrate
made reference to the contradictions which have already been referred to in his
evidence. She said the following:
“This puts in doubt whether this witness was present at all
or he just heard from this Gift. In another breath he said his attention
was divided as he was busy guarding the beasts.
Added to this, this witness also said he saw the accused
slapping the complainant twice contrary to the accused's assertion that it was
only once that he had slapped the complainant, which also dented accused's
story, and throws doubt of his presence at the scene, particulary as he was
also prevaricating under cross-examination. Juxtaposing his evidence and
that of Gift Moyo, the first defence witness, one would be inclined to believe
that he rehearsed evidence with Gift Moyo who had been present before being
chased away by the accused prior to the rape and then came up with this story
of the slapping of complainant by the accused twice, yet the accused himself
was talking of slapping her once.
As such the evidence of these two defence witnesses did not
take the defence case anywhere at all, as it dented it instead of corroborating
it.
On the other hand evidence of the complainant was clear,
straightforward and consistent. She exhibited a very good demeanour and
gave a detailed account of the events and how the rape happened and even gave
detailed account of what accused was saying when he was penetrating her.
Surely to suggest that such an old, unsophisticated elderly rural woman would
fabricate and/or invent such details would be an affront of common sense.
A lying witness would in my view, not fabricate the type of detail as narrated
by the complainant. Her story sounded original and rang bells of truths
in it. She even broke down during proceedings. Surely she could not
have been stage-managing all that. She was consistent and stood her
ground under cross-examination.”
Like the court a quo this Court finds no basis for holding that the
magistrate misdirected herself in any manner in finding the complainant a
credible witness and accepting her evidence as proving beyond any reasonable
doubt the commission of the offence and identification of the appellant as the
offender. The evidence adduced clearly shows that the complainant must
have had sexual intercourse with a male person before she made the report to
her son.
The suggestion by the appellant's legal practitioner that
she could have had sexual intercourse with a man between the time she reported
to her son and the time she was examined by the doctor does not deserve serious
consideration. The reason is that medical examination formed part of the
investigation to establish the truth of the allegations of the rape which had
already been made to her son. So it is those allegations which formed the
subject of the medical examination to the establishment of the truth of which
the findings thereof were relevant. It must therefore be accepted that
the injuries to the complainant's private parts and the evidence of penetration
established by the examination by the doctor related to sexual intercourse
which took place before the report to the complainant's son. The complainant's
son observed soil on the complainant's clothes, confirming her evidence that
she was felled to the ground.
There was no suggestion that complainant could have
deliberately soiled her clothes to fabricate evidence of rape. Her son's
evidence that she was distressed at the time she made a report to her together
with his observation of the soil is confirmatory of her credibility in so far
as the fact that she had had sexual intercourse with a man before the report
was made is concerned.
The question the learned magistrate and the court a quo had to answer
is why the complainant would implicate the appellant as the man who had sexual
intercourse with her in the fields without her consent. This question is
important because the complainant would have to be found to have shielded a man
who injured her in the manner found by the doctor whilst effecting penetration
of her private part without her consent.
The appellant's explanation that the complainant falsely implicated him because
he assaulted her once by clapping her in the face had to be found to be
reasonably possibly untrue to be rejected. A close examination of the
judgment of the learned magistrate which was accepted by the court a quo
shows that the story by the appellant and his witnesses was found to be
false. This finding is clearly supported by the contradictory evidence of
the assault. Whilst the appellant says he assaulted the complainant once
in the course of being pursued by her under the barrage of insults Gift did not
observe the pursuit. He said the respondent struck the appellant twice
and gave a different reason for the assault. The other contradictory
aspects of it noted by the magistrate shows Gift did not witness the assault he
talked about. The same goes for Last who gave evidence, the effect of
which is, that the appellant struck the complainant more than twice.
It is clear therefore that the only consistent and credible version on this
issue of the assault was that of the complainant to the effect that the assault
never took place.
In S v Trainor 2003(1) SACR 35 SCA 1 ALL SA 435 at 41B-C the court
said:
“A conspectus of all evidence is required. Evidence
that is reliable should be weighed alongside such as may be found to be
false.... In considering whether evidence is reliable, the quality
of the evidence must of necessity be evaluated, as must be evaluated against
the onus on any particular issue as in respect of the case in its entirety.”
On all the circumstances of the case, the learned magistrate and the court a
quo were entitled to find that the evidence of the complainant had proved
the offence against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The appeal
against conviction must therefore be dismissed.
On the question of sentence, it has been said time and again, that sentencing
is a matter for the exercise of discretion by the trial court. The
appellate court would not interfere with the exercise of that discretion merely
on the ground that it would have imposed a different sentence had it been
sitting as a trial court. There has to be evidence of a serious
misdirection in the assessment of sentence by the trial court for the appellate
court to interfere with the sentence and assess it afresh. The allegation
in this case is that the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and induces a sense
of shock. In S v Mkombo HB-140-10 at p 3 of the cyclostyled judgment
it was held that:
“The position of our law is that in sentencing a convicted
person, the sentencing court has discretion in assessing an appropriate
sentence. That discretion must be exercised judiciously having regard to
both the factors in mitigation and in aggravation. For an appellate
tribunal to interfere with the trial court's sentencing discretion there should
be a misdirection see S v Chiweshe 1996(1) ZLR 425(H) at 429D; S v
Ramushu and Others S-25-93.”
It is not enough for the Appellant to argue that the
sentence imposed is too severe because that alone is not misdirection and the
appellate court would not interfere with a sentence merely because it would
have come up with a different sentence. In S v Nhumwa S-40-88
(unreported) at p 5 of the cyclostyled judgment it was stated that:
“It is not for the court of
appeal to interfere with the discretion of the sentencing court merely on the
ground that it might have passed a sentence somewhat different from that
imposed. If the sentence complies with the relevant principles, even it
if is severe than one that the court would have imposed sitting as a court of
first instance, this Court will not interfere with the discretion of the
sentencing court.””
The factors relied upon are that the sentence does not reflect sufficient
weight having been placed on the fact that the appellant was a youthful first
offender. The court a quo observed that the learned magistrate
considered the factors of mitigation referred to and placed the weight she
considered sufficient on them as reflected in the sentence imposed. The
learned magistrate observed, in particular, the social outrage emanating from
the increase in the rape cases involving elderly women in her area as well as
in the country generally.
There is of course no gainsaying the fact that rape is a very serious offence
which has become very prevalent requiring stern sentences by the courts to
protect society. The court a quo made a pertinent observation of
the fact that the appellant being a young and strong man took advantage of the
age of the complainant and her frailty knowing that she was powerless to resist
his aggression. The utterances he made during the commission of the
offence indicate not only determination to commit the offence but also the
total control he had over the complainant.
The court agrees with the court a quo's observation expressed in the
following words:
“The fact that the sentence may be harsher than we would
have imposed in similar circumstances is not a proper ground for interfering
with the sentencing discretion of the court a quo. In any event
we find that the hurtful words spoken by the youthful appellant to the
complainant during her humiliation only added salt to aggravate the
humiliation. Those young strong men who take advantage of the very young
or very old do so because these two groups are indeed vulnerable to their
vulgar and deplorable attacks. When they are properly found guilty of
committing such heinous crimes on society's vulnerable, they should not expect
mercy from the courts.”
In S v Nyamimba 2002(2) ZLR 607 it was held that complainants in
sexual cases are traumatised by the act of rape.
It is trite that an appeal court will only interfere with the discretion of a
trial court where the sentence is disturbingly inappropriate or where the
discretion of a trial court in respect to sentence has been exercised
capriciously or upon a wrong principle. In S v Sidat 1997(1) ZLR
487(SC) it was held by McNALLY JA at 491 as follows:
“Once it is decided that there has been a material
misdirection in relation to sentence then there has been a substantial
miscarriage of justice. The appellate court is then at large to consider
on the right facts, what an appropriate sentence should be. In so
considering, it is not fettered by a consideration of the sentence by the lower
court.
If, on the other hand, there has not been a misdirection by
the lower court, then there can only have been a substantial miscarriage of
justice if the sentence is “disturbingly inappropriate” or “so severe as to
induce a sense of shock”. Lacking a misdirection, in other words, the
court will not be “at large” and will only be able to interfere if the severity
of the sentence amounts to a substantial miscarriage of justice.”
The court is not at large to interfere with the sentence
imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the court a quo. The
appeal against sentence thus has no merit and it must also fail.
Accordingly the appeal against conviction and sentence is
dismissed.
GOWORA
JA: I
agree
HLATSHWAYO
JA: I
agree
Dondo & Partners, appellant's legal
practitioners
The Attorney General's Office, respondent's legal practitioners
