The facts of the case are largely common cause.
The deceased was the appellant's younger brother. He
operated a grinding mill, and two weeks before this incident, he had sold his
cotton for which he had been paid US$1,800=. He was known to carry large sums
of money in two wallets which he kept on his person.
The appellant was aware of this.
On the fateful day, the appellant went to the deceased's
homestead to request the latter's assistance in making contour ridges at his
field. The deceased stated that he was unwell whereupon the appellant went away
and returned with herbs with which he prepared a concoction and gave the
deceased to drink. After taking the concoction, the deceased announced that he
was feeling better and they left for the appellant's field. The appellant was
carrying an implement known as a w-bar (used for digging), a mattock, an axe,
and a shovel.
Upon arrival at the appellant's field, the appellant struck
the deceased on the head several times with the mattock.
The deceased died instantly.
The appellant searched the deceased and took an undisclosed
amount of cash which he found in his pocket. He then buried the deceased in a
makeshift grave, used the shovel to fill the grave with soil and thereafter
covered it with thorn bushes which he had cut using the axe. That done, the
appellant returned to his homestead, packed his clothes and, together with his
wife, left for Harare. The body of the deceased was discovered ten (10) days
later and a report made to the police leading to the subsequent arrest of the
appellant in Harare. The body was exhumed and a search for valuables revealed
only a Nokia phone. The two wallets and the money were never found.
On 22 August 2012, a postmortem examination of the
deceased's remains was performed. The doctor concluded that the cause of death
was head injury, multiple skull fractures, and blunt force trauma.
In his warned and cautioned statement recorded by the
police on 25 October 2012, the appellant admitted that he killed the deceased
in order to rob him of his money. He, however, denied finding any money when he
searched the deceased after his death; however, the inference is irresistible
that he must have taken the money.
We are satisfied that the conviction on a charge
of murder with actual intent to kill was proper in the circumstances.
