State versus Takundwa Gwatidzo

On 8 March 2024, around 0100 hours, the deceased Alluance Muronda, a psychiatric patient who had relapsed due to defaulting on his medication, strayed into the accused's home at house number 14 Cedar, Manresa Park, Harare. The accused, Takundwa Gwatidzo, was awakened by his mother who heard sounds outside. He encountered the deceased hiding in the dining room. A scuffle ensued during which the deceased grabbed the accused's testicles, causing injury. The accused subdued the deceased, tied him up, and with assistance from his uncle Shyleen Khumalo and neighbour Tawanda Nhekede, transported him to Highlands Police Station in an Isuzu truck. During the journey, the deceased continuously hit his head on the truck's bulbar and sides, protesting he would rather die than be arrested by a civilian. The deceased was handed over to police custody and taken to Parirenyatwa Hospital on 9 March 2024 where he was treated and discharged. On 10 March 2024, he was released into his brother Nathan Madaza's custody. That evening, the deceased continuously threw himself to the floor from the bed for approximately 10 hours, complaining of pain. On 11 March 2024, he was taken to Parirenyatwa Hospital where he was pronounced dead upon arrival. A postmortem examination revealed the cause of death as cerebral oedema and head trauma. The State charged the accused with murder, alleging he assaulted the deceased with a slasher and plank causing fatal injuries.

• Whether the accused assaulted the deceased using a plank and slasher
• Whether the deceased's death was caused by assault by the accused
• Whether the deceased's fatal injuries were self-inflicted by hitting his head on the car and throwing himself to the floor
• Whether the accused acted in self-defence
• Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully and with the requisite intent caused the death of the deceased

The accused Takundwa Gwatidzo was found not guilty of murder and was acquitted.

For a conviction of murder, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) the accused's conduct unlawfully caused the death of the deceased; (2) the accused acted with intent to kill or with dolus eventualis (realizing there was a real risk or possibility that death might result but continuing with the conduct nonetheless). In determining causation, the court must establish a clear causal link between the accused's alleged conduct and the death. Where there is credible evidence of intervening causes, including self-inflicted injuries by the deceased, and the medical evidence does not support the State's theory of how death occurred, it would be unsafe to convict. The court must base its findings on objective medical evidence (such as postmortem reports) rather than potentially biased witness testimony, particularly where witnesses have an emotional interest in the outcome.

The court observed that when the deceased was throwing himself to the floor continuously for 10 hours, this was a cry for help which should have alerted the family to the need for immediate medical attention, but this did not happen. The court noted that the deceased had become a danger to himself due to relapsing after defaulting on his medication and was clearly not in full control of his mental faculties. The court also commented on the credibility of various witnesses, finding Nathan Madaza (the deceased's brother) to be an incredible witness due to inconsistencies between his police statement and oral evidence, his glossed-over account of events, and his opinions about matters that happened in his absence. The court observed that some witnesses appeared to have a desire to pin responsibility on the accused despite the evidence. The court also noted that as a retired police officer, Nathan Madaza should have known the importance of including critical details in his police statement.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law as it illustrates the strict standards of proof required in murder prosecutions, particularly regarding causation. It demonstrates the importance of establishing a clear causal link between the accused's conduct and the deceased's death. The case also highlights the court's duty to carefully scrutinize evidence and reconcile conflicting testimonies with objective medical evidence. It emphasizes that even where an altercation occurred, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's specific actions caused the death, and that intervening acts (whether by third parties or the deceased himself) did not break the chain of causation. The judgment also underscores the vulnerability of persons with mental health conditions and the importance of proper medical care and supervision.