State v Beulah Emma Zisengwe

On 15 August 2010, the accused Beulah Emma Zisengwe and the deceased Peter Gasela Zisengwe, who were husband and wife, had an argument at their home in Glen View 1, Harare. The argument arose when the deceased was speaking on the phone to their son Desmond, saying the accused was "a problem." The accused confronted the deceased and also questioned him about his whereabouts during their grandson's funeral. The deceased slapped, pushed, and shoved the accused from room to room. Their son Ngaakudzwe attempted to restrain the deceased but was overpowered. In the kitchen, the deceased throttled the accused while she was making sandwiches with a knife in her hand, and threatened to kill her. The accused, who was asthmatic and experiencing breathing difficulties with her head bent backwards, stabbed the deceased once on the left shoulder below the collar bone. The deceased collapsed and was taken to hospital where he died on 16 August 2010 from hypovolemic shock and a ruptured artery caused by the stab wound. The marriage was characterized by mutual violence and alcohol abuse over 32 years, with both parties being physically and verbally abusive when drunk. The violence was so pervasive that one of their sons had attempted suicide due to the volatile home environment.

• Whether the accused murdered the deceased with actual intent to kill
• Whether the accused had constructive intent to kill (dolus eventualis)
• Whether the accused acted in self-defence as provided in section 253 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act
• Whether all requirements of self-defence were satisfied: (a) unlawful attack commenced or was imminent; (b) conduct was necessary to avert the attack; (c) means used were reasonable in the circumstances; (d) harm caused was not grossly disproportionate
• Whether the accused, as a battered woman subjected to long-term domestic violence, acted reasonably in the circumstances

The accused Beulah Emma Zisengwe was found not guilty of murder and was acquitted.

Where an accused person charged with murder establishes that all requirements of self-defence under section 253 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act are satisfied—namely that (1) an unlawful attack had commenced or was imminent, (2) the conduct was necessary to avert the attack with no other means of escape, (3) the means used were reasonable in all the circumstances, and (4) the harm caused was not grossly disproportionate to the harm threatened—self-defence constitutes a complete defence resulting in acquittal. The reasonableness of a person's conduct in self-defence must be assessed in light of the situation as it existed at the time and in relation to the particular person, including any stress, fear, history of abuse, and physical circumstances affecting that person. A battered woman who stabs her attacker once with a weapon already in her possession, while being throttled and threatened with death, without time to consider alternatives and without deliberately aiming at a vulnerable area, acts reasonably in self-defence even if the blow proves fatal.

The court made important observations on domestic violence, noting that mutually volatile relationships characterized by violence will inevitably end in regretted loss of human life. The court emphasized the need to weed out violent practices and avoid mutually volatile relationships. The court observed that domestic violence had devastating effects on the children in the household, with one child attempting suicide and another becoming so traumatized and indifferent that he viewed violence as "the norm" and could not engage meaningfully as a witness. The court noted that while the events were unfortunate and the accused would live with the consequences for the rest of her life (which itself constitutes punishment), the sanctity of human life and the constitutional right to life apply equally to all persons regardless of gender. The court commented on the role of alcohol in exacerbating the violent relationship. The court also observed that the accused was credible because she did not seek to exaggerate her defence, did not hide behind alcohol consumption, and frankly admitted her own conduct.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law (applicable for comparative purposes in South African jurisprudence on similar statutory provisions) as it comprehensively applies the statutory requirements for self-defence under section 253 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act in the context of domestic violence. The judgment recognizes the dynamics of domestic violence and the position of battered women, acknowledging that reasonableness must be assessed from the perspective of a person subjected to long-term abuse and in immediate mortal danger. It demonstrates that self-defence can be a complete defence even where death results, provided all statutory requirements are met. The case also highlights the evils of domestic violence and its devastating consequences, including the psychological impact on children in violent households. It emphasizes that the right to life applies equally to all persons and that victims of domestic violence are entitled to defend themselves when faced with imminent death.