Biti also apologised to Aleshina stating that he never meant to hurt her.

He, however, insisted on his innocence arguing that allegations against him were not criminal and should have been warned and cautioned. Reads part of his notice of appeal:

The court a quo grossly misdirected itself in convicting the appellant on a charge which was invalid regard being had to the definition of assault in section 88 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act) more particularly in that a charge of assault by word or gesture had been outlawed by Section 88 of the Act.

The court a quo also grossly erred and misdirected itself in convicting the appellant of assault as defined in section 89(1) (b) of the Act when the section is unlawful and invalid it being couched in too wide, vague and unclear and impressible language and there being no limits to what words or gestures are prohibited so as to constitute an offence…

The court a quo erred and misdirected itself in imposing on the appellant a fine of US$300 in a matter that was de minimus and in which the appellant should have been cautioned and discharged.

In the circumstances, the sentence ought to be quashed and set aside.

Second alternative; the accused be and is hereby found not guilty and acquitted.

Biti is also asking that should his conviction be upheld, the High Court should order him to pay a fine of US$100 or Zimbabwe dollar equivalent.

The matter is yet to be heard.

More: Pindula News