The State versus Prince Chokuwa and Charles Chokuwa

On 23 August 2018, the deceased Simbarashe Mutasa, a 32-year-old Zimbabwe National Army member, visited No. 6466 Muredzi Crescent, Mucheke "D", Masvingo in the early hours of the morning. He was involved in an extra-marital relationship with the wife of Neville Mudimu (the accused persons' brother-in-law). Unbeknown to the deceased, Neville Mudimu had just returned from South Africa. When the deceased entered the bedroom, Neville Mudimu mistook him for a thief and raised an alarm. The two accused persons (brothers aged 20 and 19 respectively, who were tenants at the same residence) woke up. According to the state, all three men (Neville Mudimu and both accused) assaulted the deceased with switches after tying his hands and legs with an electric cable. The accused persons then reported to Chesvingo police post. Police attended and took the deceased away, but he died at the police post from his injuries. Post-mortem revealed extensive bruises, multiple rib fractures, collapsed thoracic cage, and cause of death as respiratory failure and multiple rib fractures. Neville Mudimu fled to South Africa and remained a fugitive. The accused persons were initially released due to alleged police corruption but were re-arrested on 8 September 2018.

• Whether each or both accused persons physically assaulted the deceased
• Whether the accused persons acted in common purpose with Neville Mudimu in causing the death of the deceased
• Whether the accused persons could be convicted as co-perpetrators under section 196A of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act
• Whether the accused persons' actions constituted being accomplices to the assault on the deceased
• What verdict was appropriate given the accused persons' limited role in the incident

Both accused persons found guilty of contravening section 89(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] - Assault. Acquitted of murder.

A person who, realizing that there is a real risk or possibility that another intends to commit a crime, renders assistance which enables or encourages the actual perpetrator to commit that crime, is guilty as an accomplice to that offence under section 195(c) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. The provision of instruments (rope, switches) knowing they would be used to assault a person constitutes such assistance. However, accomplice liability is limited to the offence to which assistance was rendered (assault), not to unintended consequences of that offence (death). Mere provision of instruments does not amount to acting in common purpose or co-perpetration where the accused did not physically participate in the assault and left the scene before the fatal injuries were conclusively inflicted. Where state evidence is contradictory, incomplete, and witnesses cannot reliably identify which accused did what, doubts must be resolved in favour of the accused.

The court commented critically on the poor investigation of this matter, noting that witness statements were only recorded after a year due to alleged corruption involving the then officer in charge who was allegedly paid by Neville Mudimu to release all suspects. The court observed that it is improbable that all tenants who woke up believing a thief had been caught would simply watch passively without participating in punishing the thief, casting doubt on the credibility of the tenant witnesses. The court noted that the state's failure to call Dr Zimbwa (who examined the deceased's remains) or have his evidence admitted under section 314 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act was not fatal to establishing cause of death, as the post-mortem report was admitted and other evidence clearly established the injuries arose from the assault. The court rejected as "wild allegations" the accused persons' belated suggestions that the deceased might have been fatally injured while in police custody.

This case illustrates the application of accomplice liability under section 195 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act in Zimbabwean criminal law. It demonstrates that providing assistance (such as instruments used in an assault) while realizing there is a real risk that a crime will be committed can constitute accomplice liability, even where the accused did not physically participate in the principal offence. The case also highlights the importance of thorough police investigations and the court's willingness to resolve doubts in favour of the accused where the state's evidence is contradictory or incomplete. It shows the distinction between principal perpetrators, co-perpetrators acting in common purpose, and accomplices, and how the degree of participation affects criminal liability. The case also addresses permissible verdicts and how accomplice liability extends only to the offence actually committed (assault), not to unintended consequences of that offence (death/culpable homicide).