Tigere Chikede v The State

The appellant was charged with two counts of attempted murder before the Regional Magistrate at Harare. The charges arose from an incident during a police operation to decongest the city centre targeting commuter omnibuses. Count 1 alleged that the appellant attempted to murder five police officers (Constable Chimhungwe, Constable Chawapiwa, Tewende, Sergeant Maragedze and Sergeant Zhuwawo) by intentionally driving straight towards them. Count 2 alleged that the appellant attempted to murder Constable Chimhungwe by driving straight towards him. The State's case relied on two witnesses: Shepherd Chimhungwe testified that he was alone when the appellant allegedly tried to run him over, while Lovemore Zhuwawo contradicted this, stating that the appellant attempted to murder five police officers who were all on the same road. Regarding count 2, Chimhungwe stated he stood beside the appellant's vehicle and was hit by the right mirror, causing him to fall. Zhuwawo testified that Chimhungwe went in front of the vehicle and ordered it to stop. The appellant's version was that the first witness slipped and fell when he threw a baton at the vehicle. The appellant pleaded not guilty but was convicted after trial.

• Whether the conviction was safe given material contradictions in the evidence of the two State witnesses
• Whether the trial court properly assessed the credibility of witnesses and resolved contradictory evidence
• Whether the application for discharge at the close of the State case should have been granted
• Whether the State proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt

The conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court were set aside.

Where material contradictions exist between State witnesses regarding the same incident, and no independent evidence is available to resolve the contradictions, a conviction based on such evidence is unsafe. A trial court must provide reasons for dismissing an application for discharge at the close of the State case, assess the credibility of witnesses, and explain why it accepted evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where witnesses gave divergent versions of events.

The court noted that independent evidence would have assisted in the resolution of the matter, implying that in cases where witness testimony conflicts, the State should adduce corroborative evidence where possible to establish the facts beyond reasonable doubt.

This case demonstrates the importance of consistent and corroborative evidence in criminal trials, particularly in attempted murder cases. It emphasizes the duty of trial courts to properly assess witness credibility, provide reasons for rulings on applications for discharge, and adequately explain how contradictory evidence was resolved when finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case reinforces the principle that material contradictions in State evidence, without independent corroboration, may render a conviction unsafe.