Rex V Realeboha Ramanganya (CRI/T/0007/2021) [2023] LSHC 2 (8 February 2023)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU CRI/T/0007/2021 In the matter between REX AND APPLICANT REALEBOHA RAMANGANYE RESPONDENT Neutral Citation: Rex v Realeboha Ramangane (NO.0007) [2021] LSHC 02 Cri (08 March 2023) CORAM HEARD : : HLAELE J. 07 FEBRUARY 2023 DELIVERED : 08 FEBRUARY 2023 SUMMARY: The accused pleading guilty to a lesser competent charge. Court invoking Section 240 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981. Court opting to call for the summary of the evidence. The summary must disclose the elements of the crime. ANNOTATIONS: CITED CASES: 1. Masilo v Rex (CRI/A/0008/17) [2018] LSHC 29 (30 August 2018) 2. R v Moeno and another (Rev. case No. 5/2002 Cri. 14/2002 Rev. Order No.2/2002 Rev./5/2002 STATETUS 1. Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act of 1981. JUDGMENT HLAELE J [1] INTRODUCTION 1.1 The accused is before this court on a charge of murder in that upon or about the 10 th day of June,2018 and at or near Ha Ralitlhare in the district of Mokhotlong, the said accused did perform an unlawful act or omission, with the intention of causing the death of UTLOANANG RAMAJOANA, the said accused did commit the offence of the murder of the deceased UTLOANANG RAMAJOANA such death resulting from his act or omission, the said accused did thereby contravene the provisions of Section 40(1)of the Penal Code Act No 6 of 2010. 1.2 The charge was read to the accused, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser crime of culpable homicide. The defence counsel confirmed that the plea was in accordance with his instructions. The Crown in turn accepted the plea. This triggered the court to apply the provisions of Section 240 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure and evidence Act which reads as follows: “240 (1) if a person charged with any offence before any court pleads guilty to that offence or to an offence of which he might be found guilty on that charge, and the prosecutor accepts that plea the court may- (a) If it is the High Court, and the person has pleaded guilty to any offence other than murder, bring in a verdict without hearing any evidence’’ (own emphasis) 1.3 The Section uses the words “may”. This court exercised its discretion in favour of the crown leading evidence. In the case of Masilo v Rex (CRI/A/0008/17) [2018] LSHC 29 (30 August 2018)1; in interpreting this section Makara J said; 1. The interpretation of which this Court assigns to this Section is that it dispenses with a need to call witnesses to support a charge and that the same applies to the normally imperativeness of the Crown to advance any class of evidence in support of same. This is premised on the understanding that it would suffice for the Crown to summarize what would be its evidence had the Accused person pleaded otherwise. 1. There has to be a clear distinction drawn between a presentation of witnesses and their respective evidence in support of any essential evidential element for the sustenance of the charge. This is indicative that where a procedure under the Section is followed the Crown would pass the test if its Summary embraces all the essential elements of the charge. The approach should be comprehended against the background that Section 240(1)(b) procedure is followed after the Accused shall have pleaded guilty. It is for this reason that at the end of the outline, a Magistrate should call upon the Accused to confirm the outline or do otherwise. The Court is correspondingly enjoined to scrutinize the record so as to ascertain the existence of all elements therein. In the understanding of this Court, the existence of all the requisite elements will be indicative the Crown shall have proven its case beyond any reasonable doubt. 1.4 In the present case, evidence was read into the record. The main task of the crown is to align the evidence to the elements of the crime of Culpable Homicide in that, a fight ensued between the accused and the deceased. It was during that fight the deceased sustained a wound on the thigh. There is no evidence explaining how the wound was sustained. Be that as it may the postmortem report indicates that death resulted as a result of bleeding from this thigh. This post mortem report was handed in and marked exhibit ‘”2”. The crown also exhibited the knife which was the weapon responsible for the infliction of the wound on deceade’s thigh. The knife was handed in and marked “exhibit 1”. 1 Masilo v Rex (CRI/A/0008/17) [2018] LSHC 29 (30 August 2018 The defence accepted the facts as outlined by the crown. It also had no objection to the exhibits being handed into court. 1.5 As has been alluded to above, the facts so outlined must still prove the essential elements of the crime. The dictum in R v Moeno and another2 is relevant in this regard. This is where Hlajoane J discharged the accused after the evidence which was led lacked the essentials of the crime. To put the case into context, it is imperative to cite Section 41 of the penal code so as to align the essentials. The Code provides: 41 (1) A person commits the offence of culpable homicide if he or she causes death of another person through a criminally negligent act or omission. (2) An act or omission shall be deemed to be criminally negligent if it involves a risk of serious harm to another, and the risk would have been apparent to a reasonable person. 1.6 This Court having heard the summarized evidence, is persuaded that the outline embraced all the essential elements for the sustenance of the charge. The accused has caused the death of another. There has been no evidence to suggest dolus or intention. In the circumstances of this case, I find the accused guilty of culpable Homicide on his own plea. My assessors agree with me. [2] MITIGATION 2 R v Moeno and another2 (Rev. case No. 5/2002 Cri. 14/2002 Rev. Order No.2/2002 Rev./5/2002 Mr. Lesuthu on behalf of the accused submitted the following as mitigating factors; 2.1 The accused had no previous convictions. He is a first offender. The crime was committed in 2018 while he was at tender age. He is now 26 years of age. At the time he must have been 21. He is a herd boy and not educated. The stab wound happened at the lower part of the body which is not vulnerable. It was at night when the incident occurred. There is no evidence to show that the accused was an aggravator. He should be judged as a head-boy or a shepherd. The court should analyze the post mortem and the court will see that the demise of the deceased was caused by over bleeding. This means, they failed to apply first aid on the spot. There was only one stab wound. It was only in the morning that he got to find out about the death. The accused did not run away after the commission of the crime. The accused was very co-operative with the Police. He is prepared to raise the head of the deceased to show remorse. He is at peace with the relatives of the deceased. He visits the family. They live in the same village. He concluded by saying, we pray the Honourable court to allow him an alternative of a fine that is within his means of living. He is employed as a head-boy earning 500 per month. [3] SENTENCING 3.1 The crown informed the court that the accused has no previous convictions. 3.2 I have considered the mitigating factors placed before the court by the defence counsel Mr. Lesuthu. I however reject that at the time of commission the accused was considered in the category of youth as he was 23 as opposed to 20. I have considered the mended relationship between the families of the deceased and the accused. I have also considered that being a shepherd in rural Mokhotlong, the accused is probably a simpleton. 3.3 I am however convinced that if there was a raising of the head to be done, it would have been done by now, considering that the accused was on bail since 2018. 3.4 Having taken the mitigating factors into consideration, the court is, however, not prepared to turn a blind eye to the seriousness of the offence with which the accused person has been convicted. He has deprived another person of his life. A human life is God given and for that reason sacred. Courts have warned that it will take a rather dim view of people who seem prepared to deprive their fellow humans of their lives for the flimsiest of reasons. These warnings of the court seem to be going unheeded. There is, therefore, a need to impose a sentence that will deter the accused person from a repetition of this sort of a thing and serve as a lesson to people of his mind that the courts of law will not tolerate this kind of behaviour. Doing the best, I can, in balancing the triad between the offence, the offender and the interests of society in the circumstances of this case, I consider that justice would be served by ordering the sentence below. SENTENCE: 3.5 I, therefore, sentence the accused to 6 years imprisonment, half of which is suspended for 3 years on condition that he is not, during the period of suspension, convicted of any offence involving violence on other persons and for which conviction he is sentenced. My assessors agree with me. ------------------------------ M. G. HLAELE JUDGE CROWN: Adv T. Pone DEFENCE : Adv K. Lesuthu 8