The State v Shepherd Tapiwa Manjeru

On 6 December 2016 at Manyama Business Centre, Chief Charumbira, Masvingo, the accused and the deceased Witness Mutobvu were playing snooker at Chawatama bottle store around 19:30 hrs. An altercation arose between them over a missing 25 cent snooker token which the deceased alleged the accused had stolen. During the altercation, they pushed each other until they were outside the bottle store. The State alleged the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife at the back of the left shoulder. The deceased was taken to Masvingo General Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. The accused fled the scene, leaving his maroon shirt behind, and was only arrested 13 days later at Ngundu. The accused was 18 years old at the time of the offence. The post-mortem report showed the cause of death was a stab wound on the left thorax, 4 cm deep, caused by a sharp object with moderate to severe force. The accused denied stabbing the deceased, claiming the deceased was injured when he fell on an unknown object in a flower bed after the accused pushed him while defending himself from an attack.

• Whether the accused caused the fatal injury to the deceased by stabbing him with a sharp object
• Whether the accused had the requisite intent for murder
• Whether the accused's version that the deceased fell on a sharp object was credible
• What is the appropriate sentence for a youthful first offender convicted of murder with constructive intent

Verdict: Guilty of murder as defined in section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] - murder with constructive intent. Sentence: 10 years imprisonment.

Where an accused uses moderate to severe force with a lethal weapon (knife) to stab a victim in a vulnerable part of the body (left thorax), resulting in immediate death, and the accused flees the scene, this constitutes murder with constructive intent under section 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act where the accused realized that death would result from such an attack. Flight from the scene and subsequent hiding, together with inconsistencies between an accused's warned and cautioned statement and later evidence, are relevant factors in rejecting an accused's version of events. An accused's speculative version that a deceased fell on an unknown sharp object will be rejected where multiple credible witnesses testify that the surface had no such objects and witnesses heard the deceased cry out that he was stabbed by the accused.

The court expressed deep concern about the prevalence of murder cases in Masvingo committed by very young people, questioning what has gone wrong with youth and why they readily resort to violence using lethal weapons over minor disputes. The court noted there is a complete lack of respect for human life among young people. The court emphasized that life can never be cheap and that a human life cannot be worth a 25 cent snooker coupon. The court acknowledged that youthfulness may explain to some extent the accused's conduct as he may not have fully appreciated the consequences of his actions. The court positively noted the African custom of paying compensation to the deceased's family as a positive aspect, even though it cannot bring back the deceased. The court stated it has a duty to ensure that human life is valued, preserved and respected, and that the offence of murder is inherently very serious and should be frowned upon by any right-thinking person.

This case illustrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to murder with constructive intent, particularly in cases involving young offenders and disputes over trivial matters. It demonstrates the court's concern about the prevalence of violent crimes committed by youth and the use of lethal weapons to settle minor disputes. The case shows how courts balance the serious nature of murder against mitigating factors such as youthfulness, first offender status, and traditional compensation practices. It also illustrates the evidential weight given to immediate flight from a crime scene and inconsistencies between warned and cautioned statements and subsequent testimony. The judgment emphasizes the court's duty to ensure human life is valued, preserved and respected, while exercising measured leniency for youthful offenders.