R v Mokoenya and Others (C of A (CRI) 7 of 2007) [2008] LSCA 12 (11 April 2008)

C OF A (CRI) NO.7/2007 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO Held at Maseru In the matter between: KUBUTU MOKOENYA SESINYI MOKOENYA BOKANG LELUMA TATOLO MAKETSI TIKISONE SHALE FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT THIRD APPELLANT FOURTH APPELLANT FIFTH APPELLANT AND REX RESPONDENT Heard: Delivered:11 April 2008 28 March 2008 CORAM: Steyn, P Grosskopf, JA Melunsky, JA SUMMARY Criminal Law ­ Murder ­ Appellants held liable on the basis of common purpose ­ prerequisites to be satisfied for a conviction on the basis of common purpose not satisfied in respect of two of the three murder counts. JUDGMENT GROSSKOPF, JA [1] The five appellants and one Molato Mokoenya were charged with committing three murders on 18 October 1999 at Thaba­Tsoeu   Ha   Shale   in   the   district   of   Mafeteng.   Molato Mokoenya was found not guilty by the court a quo on all three counts   of   murder   and   acquitted.   The   five   appellants   on   the other   hand   were   found   guilty   of   all   three   murders   and sentenced in respect of each count to five years imprisonment, such sentences to run consecutively. The appellants lodged an appeal against their convictions and sentences. [2] I shall first deal with the conviction on count 3.   The   deceased   in   that   case   was   'Miki   'Mapuleng   Leluma ("deceased 3"). The evidence on behalf of the Crown shows that deceased 3 was killed on 18 October 1999. She had been staying with her sister, the witness 'Mapoloko 'Mabuti Matsoso (PW1). She was dragged from the house of her sister at about sunrise that morning by one Khotso Mokoenya, who has since died, and appellant 2, who was armed with a spear. A group of approximately twenty people were waiting outside the house. They were armed with sticks and they appeared to be in an aggressive mood. Some of the members of this group started to assault   deceased   3   as   they   led   her   away.   Blood   was   seen coming from a wound on her head. [3] Trooper     Nqojane     (PW5)       took     part     in     the investigation of the case. He went to Malumeng on the day that deceased 3 was murdered. He found her body near her home which was not very far from her sister's house where she had been   sleeping.   PW5   examined   her   body   at   the   scene   and observed approximately eight open wounds on her head and bruises all over her body as if she had been whipped. [4] The   report   of   the   post­mortem   examination   of deceased   3   showed   that   her   death   was   due   to   "intracranial bleeding and trauma on the head". The doctor who performed the examination observed a fractured skull with multiple sharp edged wounds on her scalp, a laceration on her forehead, linear bruises all over her body and a fractured right arm.   The doctor was of the opinion that a heavy sharp object had been used in the assault on deceased 3. [5] It is the Crown's case that anyone who was identified as   a   member   of   that   group   who   had   assembled   outside   the house of the witness PW1 was guilty of the murder of deceased 3 on the basis that they shared a common purpose. It has been laid down in S v Mgedezi and Others 1989 (1) SA 687 (A) at 705 I ­ 706 B that in the absence of proof of a prior agreement an   accused   who   has   not   been   shown   to   have   contributed causally to the killing or wounding of the deceased can be held liable only if the following prerequisites are satisfied: "In the first place, he must have been present at the scene where the violence was being committed. Secondly, he must have been aware of the assault on the [deceased]. Thirdly, he must have intended to make common cause with those who were actually perpetrating the assault. Fourthly, he must have manifested his sharing of a common purpose with the perpetrators of the assault by himself performing some act of association with the conduct of the others. Fifthly, he must have had the requisite mens rea; so, in respect of the killing of the deceased, he must   have   intended   [the   deceased]   to   be   killed,   or   he   must   have foreseen the possibility of [the deceased] being killed and performed his own act of association with recklessness as to whether or not death was to ensue." [6] This   Court   has   also   warned   against   the indiscriminate application of the doctrine of common purpose. Ramodibedi J A remarked as follows in the case of  Maboka and Another v Rex (2000­2004) LAC 1, at 18: "It must always be borne in mind, however, that the modern approach is that there is no magical power contained in the doctrine of common purpose and that where there is participation in a crime, each of the participants must satisfy all the requirements of the definition of the crime   in   question   before   he   can   properly   be   convicted   as   a   co­ perpetrator.   Such   was   the   view   of   the   [South   African]   Appellate Division   in  S   v   WILLIAMS  1980   (1)   SA   60   (A)   at   63;  S   v MAXABA  1981 (1) SA 1148 (A) per VILJOEN JA;  S v KHOSA 1982 (3) SA 1019 (A). It   is   salutary   for   courts   to   exercise   some   caution   to   ensure   that innocent persons are not convicted for crimes committed by others, for such is the inherent danger of the doctrine of common purpose." See also S v Banda and Others 1990 (3) SA 466 (B) at 501 E­ F. [7] I   shall   first   consider   the   evidence   of   the   Crown witnesses who identified the appellants who had been present at the scene where deceased 3 was removed from the house with force and thereafter assaulted. The witness PW1 saw the said Khotso and another dragging deceased 3 from the house of the witness where deceased 3 had been sleeping. It was early in the morning and before sunrise according to PW1. Khotso has since died. She also saw a certain Tichere who, too, has since passed away. The witness PW1 further identified appellant 1 as one of the people present. She went outside and saw a number of people gathered in front of her house. They were armed with spears and sticks. The witness was frightened and confused and unable to identify anyone else in the group. She saw how the people in the group led deceased 3 away in the direction of her home assaulting her on the way. [8] The  witness  'Maleroala   Leroala  (PW2)   has  an  eye problem which affects her eyesight. She nevertheless identified Khotso and appellant 3 as members of the group who followed deceased   3   past   her   house   one   morning   before   sunrise. Deceased   3   was   her   neighbour.   The   witness   PW2   saw   that deceased 3 was bleeding from a wound on her head. She also saw that the people in the group who followed deceased 3 were armed   with   sticks   and   that   some   of   them   were   assaulting deceased 3 with their sticks. She could identify only Khotso and appellant 3 amongst the crowd following deceased 3. [9] The   witness   Matobako   Matsoso   (PW6)   was approximately 20 years of age when deceased 3 was killed in October   1999.   He   identified   all   five   appellants.   He   said   he knew   them   all   very   well   as   people   from   the   neighbouring village   Ha   Pitso.   PW6   stayed   with   his   mother,   the   witness PW1, in the same house where his aunt, deceased 3, had been staying. He was woken up early one morning in October 1999 by his sister who made a report to him. He then saw Khotso and   appellant   2,   who   was   armed   with   a   spear,   enter   the bedroom where deceased 3 had been sleeping. They dragged her outside where a group armed with sticks was waiting. She was   led   away   followed   by   the   group   of   not   more   than   20 people.   The   witness   PW6   identified   the   five   appellants   by name as persons who were present at the scene when deceased 3   was   dragged   out   of   the   house   and   led   away.   PW6   also mentioned the names of the said Tichere and a certain Mohapi who was not one of the accused. PW6 further identified Molato Mokoenya as one of the people who had been waiting outside, but   it   will   be   recalled   that   he   is   the   accused   who   was discharged in the court a quo. [10] There are a number of reasons why the identification of the five appellants is reliable in my opinion. The first aspect that must be borne in mind is that the Crown witnesses knew the   appellants.   They   came   from   the   neighbouring   village.   It was   further   not   suggested   to   the   Crown   witnesses   in   cross­ examination   that   the   appellants   were   not   part   of   the   armed group   who   gathered   outside   the   house   of   PW1   and   who assaulted   deceased   3.   It   was   actually   put   to   Pw6   in   cross­ examination that appellant 2 says that "they" saw him while they   were   standing   in   the   forecourt   and   that   they   saw   him running   away.   Appellant   2   therefore   placed   himself   on   the scene. PW6 incidentally denied that he ran away as alleged. What is more, not one of the appellants testified at the hearing in the court  a quo. The identification of the appellants by the Crown witnesses therefore remained uncontested. [11] I therefore conclude that the five appellants were shown to have been present at the scene where deceased 3 was seriously assaulted   with   spears   and   sticks   and   that   they   associated themselves with the attack on deceased 3. I am further of the view that all the other prerequisites set out in Mgedezi's case, supra,   have   been   satisfied   and   that   the   five   appellants   were correctly convicted of murder on count 3. [12] I shall next deal with the appellants' conviction on counts 1   and   2.   The   deceased   in   count   1   was   Itumeleng   Monki ("deceased 1") and the deceased in count 2 was Mahlomola Ralintoane   ("deceased   2").   The   only   witness   who   dealt specifically with the murder of deceased 1 and deceased 2 is Phokoane   Monki   (PW3).   Deceased   1   was   the   son   of   this witness'   elder   brother.   The  evidence   of   PW3  is  that   he   was woken up at dawn one morning by a sound on the door of the house where he was sleeping. He saw many people gathered around the house. Some of them were throwing stones while others were just standing. They appeared to be in "a fighting mood" but they did not say anything. The witness PW3 saw deceased 1 leaving the house. He ran across the yard into the garden. One of the people in the crowd said "there he is" and those people then ran after him throwing stones at him. The witness PW3 saw deceased 1 when he fell down. The people in the crowd then started chasing deceased 2 who was a family friend. The witness did not see whether the people who were chasing deceased 1 and 2 were armed. The witness later found deceased 1 where he had fallen down. He was dead. He had wounds on his head and all over his body. PW3 does not know what happened to deceased 2 but he was also found dead. [13] The witness PW3 said that he knew the six accused who were charged with murder in the court a quo. They were from a neighbouring village Ha Pitso. He was nevertheless unable to identify anyone of the people who had attacked deceased 1 and deceased 2. One would have expected   PW3   to   have   recognized   at   least   some   of   the   six accused  if they  had been present in the crowd that attacked deceased   1   and   deceased   2.   PW3   did   not   see   whether   the attackers were armed or not. We know that the people in the group who attacked deceased 3 were seen to be armed with spears and sticks,  while  none of  the witnesses  who saw  the attack   on   deceased   3   saw   the   attackers   throwing   stones   at deceased   3.   It   is   of   some   significance   that   the   people   who attacked deceased 3 were armed with spears and sticks while the people who attacked deceased 1 and deceased 2 were not seen with spears and sticks but were using stones in their attack on deceased 1 and deceased 2. This may point to the presence of two different groups. [14] The witness Matiase Rankhalane (PW4) does not take the matter  any further. He also knew the six accused who were from the neighbouring village but he was unable to identify any of the people in the crowd that passed his house early one morning in  October  1999. They were singing a song saying "when the vulture is hungry it goes about looking for prey". The   witness   later   found   the   body   of   deceased   1   behind   the house that belonged to him and the body of deceased 2 on the other side of the village. [15] Counsel for the Crown asked us to draw the inference that the appellants were also part of the crowd that killed deceased 1 and deceased 2, that they were present at the scene where deceased 1 and deceased 2 were being assaulted and killed and that they performed some act of association with the conduct of the   perpetrators   of   the   assault.   Counsel   for   the   Crown submitted that we should therefore find that the appellants are also guilty of the murder of deceased 1 and deceased 2 on the basis of common purpose. [16] It is certainly possible that the five appellants were also present when deceased 1 and deceased 2 were killed, but it is equally possible that they were not. It should be borne in mind that   the   witness   PW3   did   not   recognise   anyone   of   the appellants outside his house when the attack on deceased 1 and deceased 2 started. We do not know whether deceased 3 was killed before or after the other two, and, if before, whether the five   appellants   did   not   deal   with   deceased   3   while   other members   of   the   group   went   to   look   for   deceased   1   and deceased 2. [17] In reasoning by inference there are two cardinal rules of logic   which   cannot   be   ignored,   as   was   pointed   out   by Watermeyer J A in the well known case of  Rex v Blom  1939 AD 188, at 202­203: "(1) The inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the proved facts. If it is not, the inference cannot be drawn. (2) The proved facts should be such that they exclude every reasonable inference from them save the one sought to be drawn." It is clear in my view that the inference which counsel for the Crown   seeks   to   draw   can   simply   not   be   drawn.   In   the circumstances there are no grounds for even finding that the five appellants were present at the scene where the attack on deceased 1 and deceased 2 took place. The conviction of the five appellants on count 1 and count 2 can therefore not be upheld. [18] The learned judge in the court  a quo  sentenced the five accused  each to an effective term of 15 years imprisonment made   up  of  5  years  imprisonment   in  respect   of   each   of   the three murders, such sentences to run consecutively. Where the convictions on counts 1 and 2 now fall away the five appellants will each serve only 5 years imprisonment in respect of count 3. This is certainly not a severe sentence for a brutal murder but the Crown has not lodged a cross appeal against sentence and   counsel   for   the   Crown   did   not   wish   to   address   us   on sentence. [19]        The following order is accordingly made:­ 1.   The   appeal   of   the   five   appellants   against   their conviction and sentence on counts 1 and 2 is upheld. 2.   The   appeal   of   the   five   appellants   against   their conviction   and   sentence   on   count   3   is dismissed. I agree I agree F H GROSSKOPF JUDGE OF APPEAL J H STEYN PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL L S MELUNSKY JUDGE OF APPEAL For Appellants : B. M. R. M. Masiphole For Respondent   :     A. M. Lenono