R v Mokoai and Another (CRI/T 55 of 90) [1990] LSCA 187 (10 December 1990)

CRI/T/55/90 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter of : R EX v 1. MOKHAUNYANE MOKOAI 2. LEFU MOSILI J U D G M E N T HELD AT QUTHING Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice M. L. Lehohla on the 10th day of December, 1990 The accused - both of them - had tendered a plea of Culpable Homicide in regard to the death that they caused of Rankutloang Jeremia who died on the 18th May,1989. The Crown accepted their pleas of not guilty to the charge of Murder. In brief, the facts reveal that the deceased had occasion to attend church with the accused, and he asked for tobacco to smoke from one of them. The deceased complained, that he knew that accused 1 would refuse him that smoke. He voiced his dissatisfaction with accused 1 to that effect. And the deceased told him that he was not addressing himself to him when accused No.1 challenged him with attributing things to him. He regarded this as a form /of - 2- of provocation offered to him. However, later that day P. W.1 saw two men about to meet with the third on the tarred road. She heard a stick blow and she heard one of the assailants asking the other to desist from assaulting the deceased. Later, P. W.1 set out for the scene where she found the deceased lying on the ground. She raised an alarm and many people came there. The doctor found that the skull of the deceased was fractured, and that he had a shred below one of the eyes. The deceased died on the 18th day of May 1989. The cause of death according to the doctor who examined the deceased was that he had sustained a head injury as a result of which there had been an extradural haemorrhage as a result of the fractured skull. This, in brief is the case that is confronting both accused. As intimated earlier the accused are both found guilty of Culpable Homicide. Factors raised in mitigation have been taken into account by this Court, namely, that they are only eighteen years old both; that they are first offenders; and that they didn't waste the time of the Court in that they pleaded guilty to the charge. As properly put and advanced by their counsel that can he taken as a sign of remorse for the offence. However, the Court would he failing in its duty if it didn't regard violation of human life as a serious matter. The facts reveal that,strictly speaking,the deceased offered no offence whatsoever to the accused. In the circumstances, therefore, the least possible sentence to be imposed is that each of the accused he sentenced to pay a fine of 3000 Maloti (M3000) or serve a prison term of 6 years, half of which is suspended for three years on condition that the respective accused is not convicted of an offence involving violence to a person of another committed during the period of the suspension. For Crown : Mr. Qhomane For Defence: Mr. Fosa J U D GE 10th December. 1990