CRI/REV/195/89

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
matter of :

REX

V

TSOENE
TSOENE

JUDGMENT

Delivered
by the Hon. Mr. Justice M.L. Lehohla on the 27th day of October,
1989.

You
appeared before a second class magistrate charged with the crime of
culpable homicide and the allegation was that you killed
a man called
Ngope Tsoeu on the 15th July 1988. You pleaded not guilty to that
charge.

Your
mother gave evidence before that court that you are her son, that on
15th of July 1988 she was at home in company of the deceased
Letuka,
who had come in asking for beer; and that when you arrived, she and
he were just sitting down; and that you without any
apparent cause
just attacked Letuka and when she tried to intervene, you overpowered
her.

She ran
out to raise an alarm . She testified that the deceased was very
drunk. You told me that you didn't hear that. She said
that the
deceased was about twenty years younger than she is. You also said
that you didn't hear this. You say this accounts for
your failure to
cross-examine her on these matters. But what appeared to have been

2

your
defence from the line of your cross-examining her was that you had
been provoked, for according to your questions put to P.W.1
your
mother, you said you found this man in bed with her.

Apart
from the fact that your mother denied that this was the case, people
who came immediately after she had raised an alarm looked
at the bed
and found that there was nothing untoward about it, it didn't look to
have been slept in and there is no suggestion
that she came in the
interval between your own departure and subsequent re

entry
into the house to make up that bed. There is no suggestion to that
whatsoever.

So the
evidence was properly founded which said the bed looked as if it was
going to be slept in. Apart from these two things which
I have
brought to your. attention, you had no business whatsoever to
interfere in your mother's private affairs; that's even assuming
she
was in love with the deceased.

The
savegery with which you unleashed this attack on an unarmed man on
all accounts necessitates an appre­ciably enhanced sentence.

After the event you didn't even as much as try to take the deceased
for medical attention. In fact you had expressed the most negative

attitude to that when the chief asked you to take him for nursing
care or medical attention. You told him that the man would rise
on
his own accord from where he had fallen. The type of weapons you
used, in fact this iron rod and the stick and the part of the
body to
which you directed your blows clearly indicated that you were intent
on finishing this poor man. The learned crown counsel
shows that you
should have been charged with murder instead of culpable homicide. I
agree with him.

Witnesses
testified that the deceased had his blanket on, tied to him with a
pin and that he also had his shoes on. The suggestion
you made
through your cross examination that he attacked you with an iron rod
falls away because there is no how a man could be
in bed

3

wearing
shoes and having his blanket tied on with a pin and also holding an
iron rod and simulteneously having sex with your mother.

When this
matter came before me on review I asked that you be told to say why,
in the event that your conviction is confirmed by
this Court the
sentence should not be enhanced. I heard your submissions to that
end. But I have come to the conclusion that as
I confirm the
conviction the sentence imposed by the court below should be set
aside on grounds of manifest inadequacy.

In the
circumstances therefore I find that the least possible sentence I
ought to impose should be of (8) eight years' imprisonment.

JUDGE.

27th
October, 1989.

For Crown
: Mr. Thetsane

For
Defence In Person.