On 29 June 2013, the deceased, a 34-year-old mother of two, attended a musical show in Murereka with a friend. She had an encounter with the accused during the night. Her naked body was found the following day near the local Catholic Church with the cause of death established as cervical spinal injury. The accused claimed he had been having a three-month affair with the deceased. He testified that at the musical show, he found the deceased being intimate with another man. After a confrontation, the deceased told him she no longer loved him. The accused then demanded back items he had given her (tracksuit, skin tights, black boots, and cell phone). During an altercation, the accused grabbed the deceased by the neck, bit her left ear, and forcefully pushed her, causing her to fall in a bed of sweet potatoes. He then stripped her naked and left her lying down and crying. Medical evidence established cervical spinal injury at C3-C4 level, deformed cervical spine, bruising to face, and lacerated left ear. The accused was arrested after giving the deceased's used clothes to his girlfriend Chipo Bokosha, who became suspicious when she heard about a naked body found at the Catholic Church.
The accused was found not guilty of murder in terms of s 47(1)(a) or (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23], but was found guilty of culpable homicide.
In a homicide case, where the accused's violent conduct (grabbing the victim by the neck and forcefully pushing them causing a fall) results in death through cervical spinal injury, but there is uncertainty as to whether the fatal injury was caused by direct application of force to the neck or by the nature of the fall, and in the absence of supporting forensic evidence, it is unsafe to infer that the accused harboured intention to kill or realized the real risk or possibility of death. In such circumstances, where the accused's conduct was both the factual and legal cause of death (as death would not have occurred but for the conduct, and serious injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence), but a reasonable person would not have conducted themselves in that manner, the appropriate verdict is culpable homicide rather than murder. Additionally, in murder trials, courts should not proceed entirely by way of admissions as they need to assess witnesses, atmosphere and relationships to gain meaningful insight into motives, character and circumstances relevant to determining both guilt and extenuation.
The court made several non-binding observations: (1) The State should always be specific in its citation of statutory provisions, though in this case no prejudice resulted; (2) Basic forensic investigative techniques, such as taking specimens to establish sexual intercourse in cases involving naked corpses, should be routine but are regularly circumvented; (3) It is unacceptable for the State to make damning allegations (such as rape and theft/robbery) in case summaries which it knows it will never prove; (4) The court commented on the 'sordid aspect' that the deceased and her friend were 'women of easy virtue' who supplemented their income by 'peddling sexual favours'; (5) The court noted that cohabitation appeared to be 'the order of the day and being accorded the status of marriage'; (6) The court found it unconvincing that the accused, who knew the deceased to be of loose morals, would have been genuinely incensed by seeing her intimate with another man or that he believed she would reform with marriage; (7) The court suggested that 'selfishness and jealousy' and being 'double-crossed' may have driven the accused's actions.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law for several reasons: (1) It reinforces the principle established in S v Dehwe that murder trials should not proceed entirely by way of admissions, as the court needs to assess witnesses, atmosphere, and relationships, particularly for determining extenuation; (2) It illustrates the importance of proper forensic investigation, criticizing the failure to collect specimens to establish sexual assault despite finding a naked corpse; (3) It demonstrates the application of s 11 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act regarding factual and legal causation; (4) It shows how courts distinguish between murder (requiring intention or realization of real risk of death) and culpable homicide (negligent conduct) in cases where the exact mechanism of fatal injury is uncertain; (5) It criticizes prosecutorial practice of making damning allegations in case summaries that the State knows it cannot prove, citing S v Bhaiwa 1988 (1) ZLR 412 (SC).