The accused was convicted of contravening section 106 of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]. She was alleged to have aborted a child and concealed the body in the garden outside the house. However, no medical report was presented to confirm that the foetus had developed to the extent of becoming a 'child' as required by section 105 of the same Act. The matter came before the High Court on criminal review.
The conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside.
A conviction for an offence under section 106 of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] cannot be sustained unless there is proof that the foetus was at least twenty-eight weeks old, as required by section 105 of the same Act which defines a 'child' as excluding a foetus which issued from its mother before the twenty-eighth week of pregnancy. Medical evidence is necessary to establish the age of the foetus and meet this legal threshold.
The court noted that the scrutinising regional magistrate had properly identified the deficiency in the proceedings and correctly referred the matter for review. The court's decision reinforces established jurisprudence on this point dating back to cases from the 1960s and 1970s.
This case reinforces the principle in Zimbabwean criminal law that for offences involving concealment of birth or abortion, the prosecution must establish through medical evidence that the foetus had reached at least twenty-eight weeks of pregnancy to constitute a 'child' under the law. Without such proof, a conviction cannot be sustained. The case emphasizes the importance of meeting statutory requirements and the threshold of proof in criminal matters involving foetal development.