The State v Ackim Chirwa

On 13 December 2011 at Bonaccord Shopping Centre in Redcliff, the accused, a self-proclaimed prophet, was involved in a dispute with Johnson Dhliwayo who demanded the accused buy him beer. When the accused refused, a fist fight ensued during which Johnson, who was drunk, broke the accused's spectacles. The accused armed himself with an iron bar and struck Johnson on the arm. Johnson fell down and the accused attempted to flee. The deceased, Esdom Mukazi (aged 25), a soldier who had just arrived at the scene, grabbed the accused by the waist from behind to prevent him from fleeing and was actually shielding the accused from others who wanted to beat him. The accused drew an okapi knife and stabbed the deceased in the chest. The accused also stabbed Rangarirai Mhondiwa on the back below the armpit and on the hand when Rangarirai attempted to retrieve the knife. The deceased was taken to Kwekwe Hospital where he later died from hypovolaemic shock due to massive haemothorax from the knife stab wound to the left chest wall. The accused fled the scene and concealed the knife.

• Whether the accused stabbed the deceased with the okapi knife
• Whether the accused had the requisite mens rea for murder
• Whether the accused acted with actual intent or constructive intent to kill
• Whether the accused's version that Rangarirai Mhondiwa accidentally stabbed the deceased was credible

The accused was found guilty of murder with constructive intent and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.

A person who stabs another in the chest cavity with an okapi knife, thereby causing massive haemothorax leading to death, is guilty of murder with constructive intent where he foresaw death as a substantial possibility but nevertheless engaged in that conduct. For a verdict of murder with constructive intent, the foreseeability must be possible (as opposed to being substantially certain), making this a question of degree. Where direct eyewitness evidence establishes that the accused stabbed the deceased and such evidence is credible and corroborated, the accused's version denying responsibility will be rejected if it is inconsistent, illogical, and unsupported by the evidence.

The court observed that the accused's position as a prophet was inconsistent with his behavior and that at the very least he could have tendered an apology and shown contrition. The court commented that the deceased died because he was called by his sense of national duty as a soldier to prevent the accused from fleeing, and that he had even prevented the accused from being assaulted by others. The court noted that sentences must be deterrent to show the court's displeasure at the use of violence in resolving conflicts. The court also observed that while delay in criminal proceedings is not the fault of the accused, it causes anxiety and should be taken into account in mitigation of sentence.

This case illustrates the application of the doctrine of constructive intent (dolus eventualis) in Zimbabwean criminal law, particularly in circumstances where an accused uses a deadly weapon in the chest area. It demonstrates the court's approach to assessing credibility of witnesses in murder trials and the importance of direct eyewitness testimony. The case also shows the court's willingness to impose deterrent sentences for violent crimes, even where there is some element of provocation, particularly where the victim was attempting to assist rather than harm the accused. The judgment reinforces that self-defence or accident defences must be credible and supported by evidence.