The State v Khuliso Tshuma

Khuliso Tshuma (the offender) murdered his niece, Priscilla Tshuma (the deceased), on 25 December 2024 in rural Plumtree, Zimbabwe. The deceased was 23 years old and a member of the Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services. Years earlier, the offender had raped the same victim and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment at Khami Maximum Prison, but he was released early under a general amnesty. Upon his release, he returned to his rural home. The deceased arrived at her grandparents' homestead on 23 December 2024 for Christmas vacation. On Christmas Eve, the offender attempted to forcibly sit next to the deceased, but she rebuffed him. On Christmas morning, while the deceased was sweeping the house veranda, the offender attacked and stabbed her multiple times with an okapi knife, killing her instantly. He then walked out of the yard and disappeared, being arrested later. The offender had also attempted to lure the deceased to fetch water on the morning of the murder.

• Whether the murder was committed in aggravating circumstances as defined by section 47(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code
• What constitutes aggravating circumstances in murder cases
• Whether previous violent conviction against the same victim constitutes an aggravating factor
• What is the appropriate sentence for murder committed in multiple aggravating circumstances
• Whether premeditation constitutes an aggravating factor when combined with other aggravating circumstances

The offender, Khuliso Tshuma, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Where a murder is committed against a victim whom the offender previously subjected to serious violent crime (such as rape), and where the murder is intrinsically connected to that previous offense, this constitutes an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes under section 47 of the Criminal Code. When a murder is committed in the presence of multiple aggravating circumstances including: (1) connection to previous violent crime against the same victim; (2) use of a lethal weapon; (3) premeditation; (4) previous conviction for violent crime; and (5) gratuitous violence, combined with lack of remorse and failure to rehabilitate, the appropriate sentence is life imprisonment rather than the minimum determinate sentence of 20 years. Previous violent convictions, particularly against the same victim, may be regarded as aggravating circumstances in murder cases following the approach in S v Felix & Anor.

The court observed that section 47(3)(b) of the Criminal Code treats the lives of minors and persons over 70 years as more precious than those between 18 and 70 years, noting that by parity of reasoning, the age of a murder victim between 18 and 70 years cannot on its own aggravate the murder. The court commented that before the abolition of the death penalty, this offense would have easily attracted capital punishment. The court noted that the Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services, despite its reputation as one of the best correctional institutions in the region, had "completely failed" in this case as the offender "had learnt nothing about being a good citizen" by the time he was released. The court also observed that the saying "lightning does not strike twice" is a myth that must be consigned to folklore.

This Zimbabwean High Court case is significant for expanding the interpretation of aggravating circumstances in murder cases. The judgment establishes that where an offender commits murder against a victim whom he previously subjected to serious violent crime (in this case rape), this constitutes an aggravating circumstance even though it is not explicitly listed in section 47(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code. The court adopted the South African approach from S v Felix & Anor (1980) in recognizing previous violent convictions against the same victim as an aggravating factor. The case also demonstrates the court's willingness to impose the maximum available sentence (life imprisonment) where multiple aggravating factors are present, particularly where the offender demonstrates incorrigibility, lack of remorse, and failure to rehabilitate. The judgment reinforces that courts must impose severe sentences for violent crimes to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system and send a strong deterrent message.