The State v Clephas Muremba

The accused (30 years old) and the deceased Elizabeth Dzingi (29 years old) were cohabiting lovers at No. 37 Victoria Ranch, Masvingo since July 2018. On 18 July 2019, after spending the day drinking beer, they had a misunderstanding about the accused's alleged infidelity. The accused decided to leave, packing his belongings in a satchel. At the gate, the deceased was fatally stabbed in the left shoulder/neck area with a kitchen knife, causing her death from haemorrhagic shock. The state alleged the accused intentionally stabbed her. The accused claimed self-defence, alleging the deceased pulled out a knife to stab him, he grabbed her hand, twisted it with his back against the wall, and in pushing her away the knife accidentally stabbed her. After the incident, the accused fled to Harare, sold the deceased's mobile phone, bought poison, and attempted suicide at his rural home in Gokomere where he was arrested. The knife was never recovered.

• Whether the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally killed the deceased
• Whether the circumstantial evidence excluded every reasonable inference except guilt
• Whether the accused's defence of self-defence was valid under section 253(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act

The accused was found not guilty and acquitted of the murder charge.

In a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts must exclude every reasonable inference except the guilt of the accused. If other reasonable inferences remain possible, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt. For self-defence to succeed, it must not be disproved that: (a) the accused faced an unlawful attack; (b) the attack was imminent or had commenced; (c) the defensive act was necessary to avert the attack; and (d) the means used were reasonable and proportionate to the threat. Post-incident conduct (such as fleeing the scene or attempting suicide) while relevant, does not necessarily prove criminal intent as it may reflect panic, confusion, or moral guilt rather than criminal liability.

The court noted that the mere fact that the deceased was fatally injured does not exclude the possibility that she was the aggressor. The court observed that an intoxicated person who felt betrayed could act irrationally and violently. The court also remarked that the failure to recover the weapon does not necessarily support an inference of guilt, as there could be multiple explanations for its disappearance. The court's observation that the deceased was of a bigger body frame than the accused, though she was female, suggests consideration of the relative physical capabilities of the parties in assessing the reasonableness of the defensive response.

This Zimbabwean case demonstrates the application of self-defence principles in homicide cases where the accused claims accidental infliction of fatal injury during defensive action. It illustrates how circumstantial evidence must exclude all reasonable inferences except guilt (applying R v Blom principles), and that post-incident conduct such as fleeing and attempted suicide does not necessarily prove criminal intent. The case emphasizes that self-defence under section 253 of Zimbabwe's Criminal Code is assessed subjectively considering the accused's circumstances, capabilities, and mental state including stress and fear. While this is a Zimbabwean judgment, it reflects common law principles applicable in South African criminal law regarding burden of proof, circumstantial evidence, and self-defence.