The State v Nhlanganiso Luphahla and Augustine Ncube

On 15 July 2015, two accused persons (aged 34 and 27 respectively) attacked a 16-year-old girl, Praise Mpofu, and her 21-year-old boyfriend Brian Dube while they were taking a stroll along the Zambezi River in Victoria Falls. The accused, wielding logs, accused the couple of trespassing and attacked Brian Dube with a log to his head, rendering him unconscious. They tied his hands, undressed him, and robbed him of a black satchel containing a laptop, earphones, MP3 player, flash drive, sweets, and a Samsung cellphone. The deceased was then dragged into thick bushes where she was struck repeatedly with logs on her head and neck until she died. Her body was thrown into the Zambezi River where it was later found floating. Brian Dube survived the attack and later identified both accused at identification parades. The first accused was arrested in possession of stolen property and had sold the laptop in Bulawayo.

• Whether the two accused persons acted in common purpose in committing robbery and murder
• Whether the accused persons had actual intent to murder the deceased
• Application of section 196 of the Criminal Law Code regarding common purpose liability
• Whether the defences raised by the accused persons (including accused two's claim of duress) were credible
• The appropriate sentence for murder with actual intent committed during the course of a robbery

Both accused persons were convicted of: (1) One count of robbery - each sentenced to 10 years imprisonment; (2) One count of murder with actual intent - each sentenced to life imprisonment.

Where two or more accused persons associate together in conduct preparatory to a crime or engage in criminal behavior as a team, and are present at the scene of the crime in circumstances implicating them in its commission, it is presumed that they knowingly associated for criminal purposes and the conduct of the actual perpetrator is deemed to be the conduct of every co-perpetrator (section 196 of the Criminal Law Code). For murder with actual intent to be established, the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that either (a) the accused desired to bring about the death of the victim and succeeded, or (b) while pursuing another objective, the accused foresaw death as substantially certain and proceeded regardless (S v Mugwanda applied). In this case, the extreme violence directed at the victims' heads, combined with disposal of the body, established actual intent to murder. Both accused were equally liable as co-perpetrators despite uncertainty as to who struck the fatal blow.

The court made strong observations about the deterioration of society and the need to protect children and young people: "Just what has become of our society. Children deserve to joyfully run up the fields, to bask in the sun and to swim in our rivers which are our heritage without fear of lurking danger." The court emphasized that "Society does not need people like you with an insatiable thirst for blood" and stressed the court's duty "to register society's revulsion at such criminality and to uphold the sanctity of human life." The court commented that Zimbabwe "can ill-afford to continue losing blossoming human capital at the hands of senseless criminals who themselves do not add any value to society and are in fact a lost cause." The court described the killing as "senseless, cruel and evil" and stated the perpetrators deserved "to be permanently moved from society so that our children can live a normal life."

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' application of the common purpose doctrine under section 196 of the Criminal Law Code, particularly in cases of murder committed during robbery. It illustrates the courts' strict approach to violent crimes against vulnerable victims, especially juveniles. The case reinforces the principle that where accused persons act together in committing a crime and are both present when the fatal acts occur, they are equally liable regardless of who struck the fatal blow. The case also emphasizes the courts' duty to impose severe sentences for senseless violent crimes to protect society and uphold the sanctity of human life, particularly the lives of children and young people.