The State v Edmore Nyamazana

On 2 December 2011, at a stream in Senza village, Nkayi, the accused was alleged to have murdered Lizzie Mpofu. The accused went to Nkayi in December 2011 looking for the deceased at church, claiming there had been a break-in at their home in Gweru. After a church meeting, the accused, deceased, and a witness (Samkeliso Sibanda) walked together. When a scotchcart offered a lift, the accused discouraged the deceased from boarding and remained behind with her. This was the last time the deceased was seen alive. The following day, the deceased's body was found approximately 9 paces from where they had parted with Samkeliso. The body had 12 stab wounds to the neck, wounds to both cheeks and left ear, with a knife left lodged in the deceased's cheek. The accused disappeared after the incident, changed addresses in Gweru, and made no contact with the deceased or his two children from December 2011 until his arrest in November 2014. The post mortem report indicated cause of death as haemorrhagic shock from multiple neck stabbings.

• Whether the accused could be convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence alone
• Whether the circumstantial evidence established facts that excluded every reasonable inference save that the accused killed the deceased
• Whether the accused had the requisite intention to kill (actual intent) based on the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted
• Whether the accused's defence that he was not present in Nkayi in December 2011 was reasonably possibly true

The accused was convicted of murder with actual intent and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Where a conviction depends upon circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt must be consistent with all proved facts and must exclude every reasonable inference save that the accused committed the crime. When an accused is the last person seen with a deceased alive, subsequently flees the area, changes residence without informing family, and makes no contact for years, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the accused killed the deceased. Where an accused inflicts multiple stab wounds to vital areas of the body (12 stab wounds to the neck cutting through major blood vessels, plus wounds to the face and head), leaving a knife lodged in the victim's body, this demonstrates actual intent to kill as death was clearly the aim and object of the assault.

The court noted approvingly that witnesses who provide balanced testimony, including facts that do not necessarily support the prosecution's case (such as stating that the accused and deceased appeared to be conversing well without fighting, or that there were no struggle marks at the scene), are credible witnesses who are not trying to concoct stories. The court observed that 'guilt signs are seen throughout accused's conduct' and commented that while the motive for the killing was not clear, this did not prevent a conviction based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence. The court also referenced the Commonwealth Magistrates Book's guidance on circumstantial evidence, noting that circumstantial evidence relating to means, motive, and opportunity may be less contestable and more easily relied upon than direct evidence which is subject to weaknesses of observation and recollection.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' application of established principles regarding circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, particularly in murder prosecutions where there are no eyewitnesses to the actual killing. The judgment affirms that where the accused was the last person seen with the deceased alive, combined with subsequent flight, change of residence, and failure to maintain contact with family members, such conduct can constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a murder conviction. The case also illustrates how the nature and extent of injuries inflicted can establish actual intent to kill, particularly where there are multiple stab wounds to vital areas. The judgment emphasizes the court's assessment of whether a defence is 'reasonably possibly true' and demonstrates that implausible defences that defy human nature and common sense will be rejected.