Pursuer Charged With Murder After Fleeing Thief Drowns In River

The murder charge raised one issue for determination: whether the accused is liable for the death of the deceased, who fled from the accused and jumped into a river and died.

According to court documents, on 20 January 2024, Baton, who was in the company of one other person, apprehended Tawanda Musona, a suspected thief.

The two assailants, using their open palms and switches, physically assaulted Musona before forcibly taking him to the farm office.

However, along the way, Musona managed to break free and flee. The duo gave chase, but when Musona realised they were gaining on him, he decided to jump into the Munene River.

The accused told the court that they waited by the riverside for approximately 10 minutes, but when Musona failed to resurface from the water, they left the scene.

Musona’s body was discovered five days later in a state of decomposition by the river bed.

Baton was subsequently arrested and charged with murder, but he denied the offence saying he only slapped the deceased.

The State produced a post-mortem report with the cause of death indeterminable as the deceased’s body had decomposed.

The two witnesses who gave evidence, including a police officer, confirmed the accused person’s version of events.

The investigating officer testified that the deceased had no injuries when his body was found.

The doctor who conducted the post-mortem could not conclusively tell the cause of death. The post-mortem report showed that most of the deceased’s body parts were swollen due to decomposition, but there were no injuries.

In her ruling, the judge said the deceased, in a bid to escape, ran away from his pursuers, hence he did not want to go where the two would interrogate him and he jumped into the river.

She said the cause of death is not known and the State should establish a causal link between the accused’s act or omission and the death of the accused saying the charge of murder required proof of both the unlawful action and intention to kill.

The State submitted that there was no evidence that the accused inflicted fatal wounds, but stated that the accused person created a situation where the deceased was cornered and was left with no option but to jump into the river.

Baton’s lawyers submitted that the deceased’s conduct in jumping into the river was an intervening act that should absolve the accused, saying the deceased took a conscious risk.

The defence argued that the setting of the scene of the crime was that from the point the deceased was assaulted and fled from the accused, he crossed the Banket-Raffingora road.

The defence pointed out that to the now deceased’s right about 200 metres, there was a police roadblock, and to the left, there was nothing and he could have run towards his left along the road.

But he chose to cross the road and run into Madzingura Farm, where he ran for about 250 metres even though there was adequate room to flee in any other direction except to the river.

The judge said if the deceased was seeking protection, he could have approached the police at the roadblock, but he chose the river. Said the judge:

There was ample room for the [deceased] to flee in any other direction save for the river. Even though the accused pursued him to about seven metres from the river, it was not reasonable to jump into the river.

He had options to flee in any other direction except the river. There was evidence that the river was full of water and it was known that it had crocodiles.

For an act to constitute an intervening act, there must be a new set of factors that break the link between the accused’s conduct and the result.

She then acquitted Baton on the charge of murder but found him guilty of assault in contravention of section 89 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23].

The judge said life was lost as a result of high-handedness, adding that they should have taken the deceased to the police officers manning the roadblock.

More: Pindula News