The State v Vincent Karanda and Others

On 14 May 2015 at around 1900 hours, Lawrence Mbama (deceased, aged 31) was walking along 6th Avenue Extension Bulawayo with Thulani Nkomazana and Petersen Chitanda. At the intersection with Basch Street, the deceased was attacked by accused 1 (Vincent Karanda) and his associates numbering between 6-7 persons. An argument ensued after one of the accused's colleagues intentionally stepped on the deceased. Accused 1 attacked Chitanda with a fist, causing him to bleed from the nose. The group surrounded the deceased, and during the scuffle, one of accused 1's associates drew a knife and stabbed the deceased twice in the back and once on the left thigh. Chitanda was hit with a brick by accused 1. The gang stripped the deceased of his shirt and right shoe and fled into Madlodlo Beer Garden. Police attended and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. An ambulance was summoned but the deceased died at the scene before receiving medical attention.

• Whether the accused was present at the scene of the crime
• Whether the accused acted in common purpose with his associates in the attack on the deceased
• Whether the state proved murder with actual intent or constructive intent
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to place accused 2, 3 and 4 on their defence at the close of the state case

Accused 1 (Vincent Karanda) was found guilty of murder with constructive intent and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, of which 5 years was suspended for 5 years on condition he is not convicted of an offence involving violence within that period. Effective sentence: 15 years imprisonment. Accused 2, 3 and 4 (Silence Lunga, Jaston Shelton Moyo, and Oscar Tinashe Dodzo) were discharged at the close of the state case.

Where an accused acts in common purpose with a group that attacks and kills a victim, it is not necessary for the state to prove with exact precision which member of the group delivered the fatal blow. All participants acting in common purpose can be convicted of murder. Murder with constructive intent (dolus eventualis) is established where the accused foresees the possibility of death as a substantial possibility and proceeds with his conduct regardless, even in the absence of proof of actual intention to kill.

The court observed that gang attacks usually result in fatalities because victims are no match for groups that launch violence collectively. The court expressed concern about the alarming level of violence displayed and noted that accused 1 appeared to be a person who had chosen to live by violent means. The court commented that the demeanor of accused 1 showed no signs of remorse or contrition, and that he fought his defence to the bitter end while accepting no responsibility for the death of the deceased. The court emphasized that courts have a duty to ensure the sanctity of human life is guarded jealously and that sentences in such matters must reflect the abhorrence with which courts view violence against innocent persons. The court noted that this was yet another senseless and brutal killing.

This case demonstrates the application of the common purpose doctrine in criminal law, where participants in a group attack can be held liable for murder even when the specific person who inflicted the fatal blow cannot be identified with precision. The case reaffirms the principle established in S v Safatsa that all participants acting in common purpose can be convicted of murder. The case also illustrates the High Court's approach to discharging accused persons at the close of the state case where insufficient evidence exists. The judgment emphasizes the courts' duty to protect the sanctity of human life and condemn gang violence and unprovoked attacks on innocent civilians. It distinguishes between murder with actual intent and constructive intent (dolus eventualis) where the accused foresees death as a substantial possibility but proceeds regardless.