IN THE HIGH COURT OF
In the matter between:-
the Hon. Mrs Justice A. M. Hlajoane on the 2nd
The accused appeared before me
charged with the crime of murder.It being alleged that on or
about 7th December, 2002 they bothunlawfully and with
intent to kill, did assault one Lipalesa Thekoand inflict a knife
wound upon her from which she died at Queen IIHospital on the 9th
day of December, 2002.
Both accused pleaded not guilty
to the charge in accordance withcounsels instructions and such
pleas of not guilty were
entered. The Crown led evidence of eight (8) Crownwitnesses. The
first witness, Rethabile Theko who happened to be deceaseds
daughter, told the Court that accused before Court wereher father
and grandmother. To use her own words, she referred toaccused 2
as the mother to her father, accused 1.
P.W.1, a fifteen year old girl
in her Form A class, proceeded byshowing that, as she was playing
at home with others on the 7thDecember, 2002 she saw
people gathered at one place. Sheapproached the crowd and found
both accused assaulting thedeceased. Accused 2 was insulting the
deceased, calling her aLetekatse and also assaulting her
with a shoe, whilst accused 1was kicking the deceased with his
shoes. The accused left thedeceased on the ground breathing with
much difficulty. Deceasedwas taken in a wheel-barrow to her
maiden home by his brother,Thabo. She was taken in police van to
hospital as deceasedsbrother had called the police.
According to P.W.1 the deceased
was on that day coming backhome from a clinic from bandaging
injuries she had sustained theprevious month the 18th
November, 2002. The witness showedthat accused 1 had during
November, 2002 stabbed the deceasedwith a knife at the back.
this witness did not witness the stabbing she nonethelessshowed
that she came to know that her father had followed thedeceased to
a shop and stabbed her with a knife. She heard aboutthis as
deceaseds mother Matang-fusi asked the deceased as towhat
had happened to her as she came home carried in a wheel-barrow.
The deceased had come home brought by some two men Rapholoana and
Bahlakoana who claimed to have found her fallenon the way crying,
and had sustained 3 stab wounds.
In answer to questions put to
her by the defence, P.W.1 pointed outthat accused 1 used to drink
a bit too much and was in the habit ofassaulting the deceased
whenever he was drunk. That was thereason why the deceased was no
longer staying with accused 1 butstayed at her maiden home. P.W.1
also had left accused at therented flat and stayed with the
deceased. It was after the witnesshad indicated to the Court that
she did not know the cause of thefight in December, that the
Defence revealed that it was becausethe deceased was refusing to
hand over accused 1s hat.
P.W.2 Pontso Theko told the
Court that she was related to thedeceased, their mothers being
sisters. She too stayed at MazenodHa Paki. She was aware that the
deceased had left home for theClinic to bandage her wounds on the
7th December, 2002. Before
deceased left for the clinic she had asked the witness to meet
her half way on her way back as she feared accused 1 who
hadthreatened to kill her.
Same as P.W.1, this witness too
never witnessed any stabbing byaccused 1. According to P.W.2,
sometime in November of thatyear, the deceased arrived home
having sustained three stabwounds at the back. Accused 1 came in,
as the deceased wastelling them that the deceased had stabbed
her. The witness hadseen accused 1 come following the deceased to
her home asking ifhis victim had yet not died. P.W.2 showed that
she heard accused1 claim that he was the one who had stabbed the
deceased, andfurther said he wanted to stab the deceased to
death, but failed tostab her further as P.W.2 and those in her
company raised alarm bymaking noise.
Unlike P.W.1 who had said her
attention was drawn to the accusedand deceaseds fight by
seeing people gathered at one place, P.W.2said that she went with
P.W.1 and one Kananelo to go and meet thedeceased from the
clinic. They had met the deceased and accused1 on the way
pointing fingers at each other whilst also insultingeach other.
The deceased had sat down, maybe to rest, andaccused 1 started
assaulting her with a shoe on the head which he
taken from deceaseds foot. It was a three quarter heeled shoe.
As she was thus being assaulted,
P.W.2 heard deceased insultaccused 1 by his mother. It had not
been explained where accused2 came from, but the witness pointed
out that accused 2 also cameand with the other shoe from
deceaseds other foot startedassaulting the deceased with it.
Accused 2 had first asked accused1 if he was pleased with the
deceased, a prostitute, insulting her(accused 2). Accused 1
started kicking the deceased with his bootsand when all these
happened, the deceased was still sitting down,but fell to the
ground as she was kicked.
It was only this witness who
said she saw accused 1 not only usinghis hands and shoes to
assault the deceased, but that accused 1even threw stones at the
deceased. And that when all these assaultstook place, the
deceased had been lying on her face, but bothaccused turned her
up and continued throwing stones at her.
I found the attitude of the
people of Ha Paki to have been veryfunny. I am saying that
because though they had already gatheredat the scene, we have not
been told that they did anything but justwatched without
intervening or seeking for help as both accusedwere assaulting
the deceased. The deceased was left lying there by
accused. She was later taken home in a wheel-barrow and when
police arrived, they conveyed her in their vehicle to
hospital.According to this witness, the deceased was bleeding
from hermouth, ears and nose after the assault.
Under cross-examination, it was
put to the witness that thedeceased bled from her mouth because
accused 1 had struck herwith a fist and P.W.2 answered in the
Evidence of P.W.3 Mokhitlinyane
Shai was to the effect that hewas a member of LMP who has since
retired, but was still in activeservice in 2002. He was working
at Mabote Police at the receptionon the day in question. He drove
to Mazenod after he had receiveda report by telephone. He was a
driver. They drove to MazenodHa Paki and found a woman lying on
the floor and was in a criticalcondition. The witness said the
woman was quite helpless andcould not even talk. She was foaming
from her mouth.
P.W.3 said he did not examine
the woman as she was still alive andcould only be examined by
another woman. She was covered witha sheet and taken to hospital
in police vehicle. The witness hadenquired about the person
responsible for the assaults and theinformation led him to
accused 1. He found the accused at his
cautioned him and charged him of assault with intent to do
grievous bodily harm. P.W.3 had found an okapi knife as hesearched
accused 1, and seized it. He also seized deceaseds shoewhich
also was found in accuseds possession. This witness madeit
clear to the Court that he was not the investigator of this case
ashe only worked at the reception.
The cross examination to this
witness led him into saying thatthough he never mentioned that
the deceased never sustained anyfurther injuries on her way to
hospital, since they travelled on atarred road and never met with
any accident there was just no waythe deceased could have
sustained any further injuries. In answerto the question why he
had seized the knife, P.W.3 replied byshowing that it was because
it was not the first time that accused 1stabbed deceased with a
knife. He did not have personalknowledge of that fact but relied
on the information he hadreceived. The cross examination led him
further to say that on theprevious assault, accused 1 was only
arrested and charged butnever taken to Court.
P.W.4 D/Tpr Makhele, a member
of LMP who was stationed atMabote Police in 2002, informed the
Court that he was theinvestigator of this case. He met the
accused at Mabote Police
and charged them of murder. He charged them of the murder of the
deceased following the information in his possessionas the
accused never gave him any explanation. According to himthe
accused were taken to Court and remanded into custody.
Hisinvestigations revealed that both accused had assaulted
thedeceased with their hands, the deceased who already had
sustainedinjuries from previous assaults.
It would be worth mentioning at
this stage that the Court mighthave felt that P.W.4 had not done
a proper job in his investigationsbecause the witness was even
asked if he enjoyed intoxicatingbeverages and his reply being,
yes I do. He was further asked ifhe had been sober on the
day he investigated his case, the answerbeing, yes. All these
were asked because the witness had said hedid not know why the
accused were at the charge office, yet he wasthe investigator of
Evidence of P.W.5 Teboho Mosese
was admitted by the defenceafter it had been read into the
machine to form part of the record.This witness had shown in his
statement that he had been called byone Manturu to go at
Mapakisos place and assist the deceasedwhom it was reported
was being assaulted by accused 1. P.W.5said he rushed to that
place as he had on several occasions seen
1 assaulting the deceased badly. The witness did not getto
Mapakisos place as he met the deceased on the way beingcarried
in a wheel-barrow by Thabiso Lebokollane and MontsiTheko. He
assisted them till they got to deceaseds place and heleft for
The other admitted evidence was
that of P.W.6 Thabo Theko whowas identifying witness. He
identified the body of the deceasedbefore the doctor could
perform a post mortem examination on thedead body. The deceased
was his younger sister. According tohim deceased died at Queen II
on the 9th December 2002.
Dr Syed Muhhamad Adnen gave
evidence as P.W.7. he performedpost-mortem examination on the
body of the deceased. He formedan opinion as he examined the body
on the 17th December, 2002that the person had died
some nine (9) to eleven (11) days prior tohis examination. The
body had two penetrating wounds on the leftscapular region.
According to the doctor death was due to thosepenetrating
injuries to the left side of the deceaseds chest. Heopened the
chest and discovered that the left lung had a collectionof blood
resulting from the penetrating wounds. There was also asevere
congestion of the left lung. He showed that the collectionof
blood in the lung cavity caused that congestion.
evidence further showed that the wounds were not fresh. Thedoctor
made a confession and pointed out that there had been anoversight
on his part of not taking dimensions of the wounds. Hesaid this
was due to pressure of work. The doctor further showedthat, the
wounds were at the back, on the left shoulder blade. Thata
metalic object must have been used to cause the injuries.
The cross examination to this
witness revealed that the deceasedmight have not received a
proper treatment at the clinic causing thedeceased to develop
some complications. He showed that thecollection of blood was
moderate as the flow was slow but theperson may have stopped
bleeding but the blood remained in thelung cavity causing the
collapse of the lung. He concluded byshowing that to his
observation, the external injuries were notevident except for the
The last witness, P.W.8
Mphonyane Moerane told the Court thatshe stayed in the same
village as the accused. She brewed and soldliquor at her place.
She was still at her home selling beer on the 7thDecember,
2002 when Mapakiso approached her to go and assistas accused 1
was assaulting the deceased. The witness and otherpeople who had
been drinking at her place rushed to that spot only
find the deceased in a toilet and accused 1 standing outside the
door of that toilet.
The deceased must have run into
that toilet to hide from accusedsassaults because P.W.8
continued in her evidence and said, oneMohapinyane had approached
accused 1 and asked him not toassault the deceased. Accused 1 in
reply had said he was not goingto assault her but just wanted to
talk to her. How couldMohapinyane say those words if accused 1
had not startedassaulting the deceased already. This witness had
rushed to thescene because she had been invited to go and
When P.W.8 saw accused 2
approach the deceased, she thoughtshe was going to intervene as
according to this witness, accused 1was in a habit of brutally
assaulting the deceased. The word usedby this witness was
khakhatha and this word in Sesotho connotesseverely
assaulting someone. Its different from saying otlawhich
Accused 1 had taken one of
deceaseds shoe leaving her with onlyone shoe. The defence
counsel had objected to the evidence thatshowed that accused 1
was in the habit of assaulting the deceased.His basis for that
being that accused 1 was never charged of those
He was overruled on that because the witness was sayingwhat she
knew. It is not every criminal activity that is alwaystaken
before the Courts of Law. That fact that it was never takento
Court should not be taken to mean it never happened.
The witness was still moving to
and fro between her home and theplace where the fight took place
as she was also busy selling beer,and had to keep on checking on
her customers. She couldtherefore not have seen everything that
took place between accusedand deceased. But she could see that
accused 2 was only using herhands to assault the deceased, whilst
accused 1 was kicking her allover the body.
P.W.8 had seen the two stab
wounds sustained by the deceased onher shoulder blade. Deceased
showed her the wounds as she hadvisited this witness for
drinking. The witness came to know thataccused 1 was responsible
for those wounds as they werediscussing with the deceased.
Accused 1 kicked the deceased allover including on the injuries
she had sustained. The deceased wasfrom bandaging her wounds when
the accused assaulted her.Accused 1 kicked the deceased till she
lay motionless on theground with her eyes wide opened without
to this witness, as accused 1 was kicking the deceased,accused 2
stood aside and encouraged accused 1 to kill thedeceased. The
witness even heard accused 2 saying she wouldbury the deceased
after accused 1 would have killed her. Bothaccused left the
deceased there and went away. But what surprisedme was that
people had already gathered at the scene and even witnessed two
people assaulting the deceased but no one botheredto intervene.
Would it be because, as two of the Crown witnessessaid, it had
turned to be a regular spectable of that couple.
The cross examination to this
witness suggested that in fact thefight had started at the
toilet. This confirmed my observation thatthe deceased must have
run into that toilet for safety. P.W.8informed that accused 1 was
going to say that the fight started atthe toilet. But later it
was said to the witness that accused 1 neverfought the deceased
at the toilet. He was then contradictinghimself when he realized
that it would not at that stage be said hewas defending his
mother as he said, or asking the deceased abouthis hat.
It came out from this witness
that in fact, accused 1 had only beenstaying with deceased as
husband and wife but were not married.This to me sounded a bit
sad because as P.W.1 was giving her
she referred to accused 1 as her father.
The defence at the close of
prosecutions case applied for thedischarge of the accused as
they felt there was no evidence thataccused 2 killed the
deceased. Their contention being that accused2 only acted in self
defence and that even in that defence she neverexceeded the
limits. That the prosecution failed to show thataccused acted
unlawfully as she only jubilated as deceased wasbeing assaulted.
As for accused 1, it was said he only acted indefence of his
mother. The argument further showed that thecrown had led
evidence which was contrary to the indictment. Thecrown having
failed also to prove any intention and unlawfulness.
According to the defence, there
had been no evidence placedbefore the Court that accused 1 was
aware of the injuries on thedeceased when he assaulted her on the
day in question.
In answer to this application
for discharge the crowns attitudewas that there was no
evidence that it was the deceased who startedthe fight, so that
it could not be correct to say that accused 2 actedin self
defence. The position obtaining was that, accused 2 acted inconcert
with accused 1 as she associated herself with accused 1sacts
as she was heard saying kill her I will bury her. It was said,
if accused 1 could be taken to have defended his mother but he
went overboard, there was no proportionality in what he did.
On the question of having led
evidence which had been contrary tothe indictment, the crowns
response was that since the indictment said on or about 7th
of December, in terms of section 154 (2) (a) ofthe Criminal
Procedure and Evidence Act of 1981 the previousoccasion when
deceased was stabbed on the 18th November, sameyear,
fell within the 30 days period allowed by statute.
After listening to argument on
both sides the Court rules that, therewas a case for the accused
to answer. Accused 1 was the only onewho decided to go into the
witness box to testify.
Accused 1 told the Court that
they were staying together with thedeceased as man and wife
though not legally married. P.W.1Rethabile Theko was their
daughter who knew him so well.Accused 1 and the deceased had
separated each staying at his/herhome. According to the accused,
the deceased left because she hadsaid she was going for work but
was still coming back home in theevenings.
On the day in question, accused
1 had been at a drinking place
he noticed the deceased going into a toilet. He went nearerthat
toilet and waited for the deceased to come out. It should be
remembered at this juncture that, this was the stage that P.W.8
saidshe was called to the scene by Mapakiso to assist as
accused 1 wasassaulting the deceased in the toilet. P.W.8 also
said when she gotthere the deceased was in the toilet and accused
1 was the only onestanding at the toilet door.
Accused 1 said he asked the
deceased when she came out of thetoilet to bring back his hat. It
was not a peaceful talk andMohapinyane even asked accused 1 to
leave the deceased alone.But P.W.8 said Mohapinyane asked accused
1 to leave thedeceased whilst she was still in the toilet. He was
not evenchallenged on this. Accused 1 took away deceaseds
shoe, andsaid was going to give it back in exchange for his hat.
Accused 1had said he left immediately after that only to turn
back when herealized that the deceased was assaulting his mother.
We have notbeen told as to where accused 1s mother had been
all that time orwhere she had come from.
Accused 1 only kicked the
deceased once when he realized that hismother was already
bleeding from her forehead. The deceased fellto the ground as she
was kicked and accused 1 left. He denied everstabbing the
deceased with a knife during the month of November,
In explaining his relationship
with the deceased, accused 1 said itwas a stormy kind of
relationship. They used to fight each otherwithout causing any
injury. He said whenever he was drunk hewould fight the deceased
and deceased too would fight him whenshe too was drunk. This
sounded as though they had anarrangement to get drunk in turns
and not to be both drunk as thesame time which could be quite
unrealistic. We have not been toldas to what would happen when
both of them were drunk.
Accused 1 had said that deceased
left him for her home as sheclaimed she was going for work. But
the deceased was stillcoming back home from work to Mazenod, so
that that could nothave been the reason why she left accused 1.
There could only beone logical explanation, the deceased ran away
from accused 1sregular assaults.
We have seen and listened to the
evidence of P.W.1, theirdaughter, who clearly said that accused 1
was in the habit ofassaulting the deceased whenever he was drunk.
Looking at thiswitness in the witness box, I had no reason to
doubt her evidence.P.W.8 also gave the same story as P.W.1 when
she said that when
saw accused 2 at the scene she thought she was going to intervene
as accused 1 used to assault the deceased.
There was no explanation given
by accused 1 as to why P.W.2could implicate him by saying that on
the 18th November asdeceased was brought home injured,
accused 1 had come followingher enquiring about his victim whom
he wanted to finish of.Accused 1 only gave a bare denial and
could not even give anyreason why P.W.2 could lie about such a
The defence had objected to the
leading of evidence establishingthe stabbing of the deceased in
November, 2002 but he wasoverruled. The defence had argued that
the events of Novembercould not be brought into the picture in
the charge before thisCourt as the indictment only read on or
about the 7th day ofDecember, 2002. But the
prosecution in response had shown thatsection 154 (2) (a) of
CP&E took care of the situation. Thesection reads
If any particular day or period is alleged in any charge
as the day or period which any act or offence wascommitted
(a) Proof that the act or
offence was committed on anyother day or time not more than 3
months before or after the day or period laid down therein shall
taken to support
such allegation if time be not ofessence of the offence;
It was stated by the prosecution
that relying on the provisions ofthe above quoted section the
18th November fell within the threemonths allowed by
the section. I am in agreement with theargument advanced by the
defence, that in fact the section wasmisconstrued because it
would only apply where there was oneincident not where there were
two different incidents happening ondifferent dates.
Rather, the relevant section
would be section 158 of the CP&EAct which
reads:-Whenever a charge in respect of any offence is
defective forwant of the averment of any matter which is an
essentialingredient of the offence, the defect shall be cured by
evidenceat the trial in respect of the offence proving the
presence ofsuch matter which should have been averred, unless the
wantof averment was brought to court before judgment.There
has been evidence that accused 1 was reputed for assaultingthe
deceased. This was said by P.W.5. He was seen by P.W.2 onthe 18th
November following immediately after the deceased wastaken home.
He was even claiming that he wanted to finish thedeceased of.
P.W.2 heard accused 1 claiming to have stabbed the
Whilst P.W.1 and P.W.8 on the other side heard from the deceased
herself that the injuries had been caused by accused 1with a
True enough, the framing of the
indictment left out the events ofthe 18th November
when the deceased was stabbed with a knife.But evidence which was
placed before this Court established that itwas accused 1 who
inflicted those stab wounds on the deceased.The defect in the
indictment has thus been cured by evidence. S vVan Wyk 1974
(1) S.A 36. It could not even be said that theaccused would
suffer any prejudice as in both occasions accused 1has been the
one who inflicted the injuries or who assaulted thedeceased. No
need even to request for any amendment of theindictment once the
evidence has been led to cure the defect.
We learned from the evidence of
the doctor that he examined thedead body some nine to eleven days
after death. The defencerelied on the report by the doctor that
no external injuries werevisible. The doctor had made a
confession that due to pressure ofwork at Queen II he overlooked
the taking of dimensions of thewounds. The deceased had not been
taken straight to the mortuaryfrom the scene, but because she was
still alive was taken tohospital. P.W.2 had shown that deceased
was bleeding through her
ears and nose, whilst P.W.3 said was foaming from hermouth. That
could well have been so, but people might have thought that
making mention of having washed the deceased was aminor issue.
What might be worth considering would be the factthat the dead
body had been kept at a cold place at the mortuary fordays before
the post-mortem examination. So that if there hadbeen any bruises
on the body and around the injuries could not stillbe visible
during post-mortem possibly due to cold. But evidencehas shown
that both accused 1 and accused 2 were seen assaultingthe
deceased on the day in question.
When accused 1 stabbed the
deceased on the 18th November,accused 2 was not there.
She could not therefore be associatedwith the events of that
date. The intention to kill could be inferredfrom the nature of
the weapon used. Accused 2 had been using ashoe in assaulting the
deceased, but in her participation could notbe said he intended
to kill, Ntsokolo v R 1995-96 LLR&LB 335.It had been
said she was heard saying to the accused 1 as he wasassaulting
the deceased, kill her and I will burry her.
In Sesotho we always say to our
kids, I will kill you, notnecessarily saying killing in the
true sense of the word. It wouldjust be another way of showing
your disapproval, or anger.
was said in R v Duma & Another, 1945 AD 410 at 415,
thatassociation in the common design need not be express, it
may wellbe implied from conduct. The participation of accused 2
on the 7thDecember if anything was with intent to
cause harm but not to kill.
P.W.1 had shown that accused 2
joined the fight as she heard thedeceased insulting her (accused
2) when accused 1 was assaultingher (deceased). I was inclined to
believe the story of P.W.1 as sheimpressed me as a credible
witness. Prior agreement on a commonpurpose is not required, but
is sufficient if collaboration beganwithout premeditation and on
the spur of the moment, S v Maree1964 S.A. 545.
In the Mosiuoa Pheko v R
1985-90 LLR 9 the Court found thatcommon purpose to commit
Culpable Homicide had not beenproved where appellant had
assaulted the deceased once with astick after a quarrel, but
later the brother of appellant came andfatally stabbed deceased
with a knife. Appellant was not shown tohave known that his
brother would join the fight, nor was there anyevidence that
appellant knew his brother had a knife. In this case,we have not
been told that accused 2 knew that accused 1 had priorto that day
stabbed the deceased with a knife and that the wounds
even still being attended to at the clinic.
I have already pointed out that
the intention to kill could beinferred from the weapon used. It
could also be inferred from thearea where the wounds would be
inflicted. The doctor told thisCourt that the injuries which
caused the death of the deceased wereat the back on the left
shoulder blade, and evidence had revealedthat they were caused by
According to P.W.2 accused 1
was threatening to kill the deceasedthat was why deceased had
asked P.W.2 to meet her half way fromthe clinic. Accused 1
assaulted the deceased all over and did notcare to spare the
areas where the deceased had been stabbed. Thishe did in
furtherance of his intention to kill. We were told byCrown
witnesses that when the deceased was taken from the sceneshe
could no longer talk and was breathing with difficulty.
The Court therefore finds that
when the accused, accused 1 stabbedthe deceased with a knife on
the 18th November causingpenetrating wounds, and when
he assaulted her on the 7thDecember, 2002 had the
intention to kill the deceased. That whenaccused 2 assaulted the
deceased on the 7th December, 2002 shehad intention to
cause grievous bodily harm.
stand up the accused.
Accused 1: You
are accordingly found guilty of murder.
Accused 2:You are found guilty
of Assault with intent to dogrievous bodily harm.
Though one of our Assessors has
now departed this land, may Hissoul rest in peace, but we had
already discussed this case with him.So that both my Assessors
agree with my findings. Passing ofsentence deferred to 31/05/05.
A. M. HLAJOANEJUDGE
We have been told that the
accused are first offenders. Thoughthere was no valid marriage
between the deceased and accused 1,but the whole scenario
appeared to have been a family feud.Accused 1 and the deceased
stayed together as husband and wife,and this was confirmed by
P.W.1, Rethabile Theko who referred to
1 as her father.
Though the defence counsel
wanted to put things mildly by sayingaccused 1 and the deceased
fought almost daily out of jealousy, itwas correctly put by the
prosecution side that it has always been astormy kind of
The Court took into account the
extenuating circumstancesadvanced by the defence. Accused 1 was
found to have beenarmed with a knife on the day of the assault,
but did not use it onthe deceased. Accused 1 produced before
court his medical bookas evidence that he was a sickly person
attending TB treatment, butthat should not be taken to make him
less blameworthy. He hadstabbed the deceased with a knife on
previous occasion and whenhe so assaulted and kicked her on that
fateful day did not care toremember that deceased still had those
The Court extracted the truth of
the matter from both accusedthrough some of the crown witnesses.
Accused 1 denied everstabbing the deceased with a knife prior to
the day in question, butthere had been strong evidence that he
did stab the deceased andwanted to see her dead. The deceased
must have run away fromaccused 1s assaults to her maiden home.
some cases one would find that some parents in marriage love to
choose partners for their children, so that accused 2 might havebeen
one such parent. She would not tolerate her son, accused 1,taking
the deceased as his wife. We were told in evidence that sheeven
referred to deceased as letekatse, which loosely means awoman
for all men.
There has to be a balance
between the interests of the accused andthose of the victim as
was said in R v Selibo & Ors C of A (CRI)8/04 that the
victim or his dependants are often a neglected party inthe
criminal justice system. Accused 1 is a sickly person andaccused
2 is an elderly woman, but we still have to remember thatdeceaseds
parents have also lost their daughter and deceasedschildren
have lost their mother. There might be a claim forcompensation
for raising deceaseds head under our custom andthat too has to
be borne in mind in passing the appropriatesentences.
Accused please stand up.
Accused 1:You have been found
guilty of murder and you aresentenced to a period of seven years.
2:You have been found guilty of assault with intent to dogrievous
bodily harm you are sentenced to a termof three years
imprisonment, and the whole of that sentence suspended for a
period of two years oncondition that during the period of
suspension,you are not found guilty of a similar
offenceinvolving violence to another person or persons.
For Crown: Ms
For Defence: Mr
African Law (AfricanLII)
Ghana Law (GhaLII)
Laws of South Africa (Legislation)
Lesotho Law (LesLII)
Liberian Law (LiberLII)
Malawian Law (MalawiLII)
Namibian Law (NamibLII)
Nigerian Law (NigeriaLII)
Sierra Leone Law (SierraLII)
South African Law (SAFLII)
Seychelles Law (SeyLII)
Swaziland Law (SwaziLII)
Tanzania Law (TanzLII)
Ugandan Law (ULII)
Zambian Law (ZamLII)
Zimbabwean Law (ZimLII)
Commonwealth Countries' Law
LII of India
United States Law