The State v Desire Chigomba

### Preamble
1
HMT 32-19
CRB 31/19
---------


THE STATE

versus

DESIRE CHIGOMBA

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MUZENDA J

MUTARE, 28 May 2019

Criminal Trial

ASSESORS:	1. Mr Chipere

2. Mrs Mawoneke

Ms T.L. Katsiru, for the State

J.T. Fusire, for the Accused

MUZENDA J: Accused was arraigned before us charged with the crime of Murder as defined in s 47 (1) (a) or (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] where it was alleged by the State that on 17 September 2017 and at subdivision 3 Larmour Estate, Old Mutare, Chief Mutasa, Penhalonga, the accused unlawfully caused the death of Blessing Kuipa by running over her thrice with a Toyota Corolla thereby causing injuries from which the said Blessing Kuipa died. The accused pleaded not guilty to murder.

The State and defence counsel produced a statement of agreed facts and summarised the background of the case as follows:

Accused resides at Mberi Village, Chief Mutasa and the deceased resided at 8657 Glenwood Park, Harare during her lifetime. On 17 September 2017 accused was parked by a road side that led to the deceased’s farm in Penhalonga. Deceased then approached the Toyota Corolla that the accused was in and then asked the accused person to disembark from the vehicle. After a long period, the deceased returned with five people who then surrounded the car. They asked the accused to disembark but he refused and the deceased threatened to deflate the tyres of the car. In fear of his life, the accused jumped onto the driver’s seat, switched on the engine and reversed the car without seeing the deceased on the boot of the car. The deceased fell off the boot and the accused person ran her over. The accused then drove forward and fled the scene as he did so some stones were being hailed at his vehicle. Accused was negligent in his conduct. Deceased sustained depressed skull fracture and a fracture on the right ankle joint. Death was due to poly trauma.

Accused pleaded guilty to culpable homicide based on the statement of agreed facts. He was accordingly found guilty of culpable homicide.

Accused in mitigation submitted that he is aged 23 years, single, owns a car which he uses to pirate.  His youthfulness contributed to the death of the deceased, he is a first offender, he has been waiting for trial for a period of 1 year 5 months and the case has been haunting him. He tried to assist deceased’s relatives towards funeral expenses but was rebuffed. He pleaded guilty to culpable homicide showing contrition and is willing to compensate deceased’s family. He was also attacked by deceased’s relatives and sustained injuries. His motor vehicle was also damaged by relatives of the deceased, the front windscreen was damaged, the rear bumper was disengaged and there are perforations on the body of the motor vehicle.

In aggravation, the State emphasised on the sanctity of life and called for a custodial sentence. The behaviour of both deceased and the accused left a lot to be desired. Deceased should not have provoked accused and acted the way she did more particularly when the accused was parked on a public road open to use by all sundry. There was basically no need for the deceased to mobilise people and relatives to confront the accused. She contributed immensely to her death. On the other hand accused, though it is accepted that he was under attack from deceased’s family members, why he should not have cooperated and resolved the matter before causing the fatal injuries? The whole event was a bizarre and unfortunate to both parties.

Having looked at the mitigatory and aggravatory features of the matter, a custodial sentence is called for. Whatever the circumstances of the matter, loss of life is reprehensible and should be avoided at all costs.

Accordingly, the accused is sentenced as follows:

8 years imprisonment, 2 years imprisonment is suspended for 5 years on condition accused does not within that period commit any offence involving violence to the person of another for which upon conviction accused will be sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine.

Effective: 6 years.

National Prosecuting Authority, State’s legal practitioners

Legal Aid Directorate, Accused’s legal practitioners