Republic v Maloto (Confirmation Case 140 of 2022) [2022] MWHC 182 (18 July 2022)

Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CRIMINAL DIVISION CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 140 OF 2022 (Being Criminal Case No. 1124 of 2021 before the Principal Resident Magistrate Court sitting at Blantyre) THE REPUBLIC Vv RUTH MALOTO Coram: Justice Vikochi Chima Mr Mphepo, Senior State Advocate Mrs Kasambara, Senior Legal Aid Advocate Mrs Moyo, Court Clerk ORDER IN CONFIRMATION Chima J 1. Ruth Maloto, a 21-year-old woman, was convicted of unlawful wounding contrary to section 241 of the Penal Code following a supposed plea of guilt. In pleading to the charge, the convict had stated that: ‘L understand the reading of the charge. [ admit the charge, I admit that | wounded the complainant. | had used a knife in wounding the complainant.’ Upon this piea, the court entered a plea of guilt. The prosecution then presented the facts. It was stated that the convict and the complainant were lovers and that the complainant had communicated to the convict that he was ending the relationship; that the convict had followed the complainant to his workplace and insulted him there and stabbed him with a knife on the neck, back and on his two fingers. The prosecution then tendered the convict’s caution statement which stated that she had gone to the complainant’s workplace to get back her phone from the complainant which she had lent him during the subsistence of their relationship but that the complainant would Page 2 of 3 not freely give it back. In the result, the two quarreled and the complainant started beating her up. She then, in return, picked up a knife and stabbed him. 4. At the end of the presentation of these facts, the court asked her if the facts were correct and she said they were. What one sees is that the convict’s version in her caution statement is in some important points at odds with what the police presented as the facts. For example, she states that she had gone to the complainant’s workplace to collect her phone and she ended up quarreling with the complainant because the complainant was not willing to give her back her phone. Further, her statement is to the effect that the complainant was the one who started the fight. According to her statement, her action of cutting him, should either be interpreted as self-defence or a provoked act. 5. In contrast to these assertions, are the other facts of the prosecution, whose colour is that the convict’s act was done as revenge for being spurned and that it was a premeditated act, 6. So when the court asked the convict if the facts were correct and the convict responded that they were, it is unclear which set of facts the convict was in agreement with: the prosecution’s assessment of the situation or the convict’s version? This also shows that the court below omitted to put to the convict at plea stage one of the elements of the offence, which is, that the wounding was without lawful excuse. For, if the court had asked the convict why she wounded the complainant, either the prosecution’s story or her own version found in the caution statement would have come out of the convict’s mouth. Depending on what the convict would have stated as the reason for the wounding, the court would have been able to enter an unequivocal plea of guilt or a plea of not guilty. 7. Where the court has been satisfied with an unequivocal plea of guilt from the accused’s own mouth, then it knows that what is contained in the caution statement, if it contradicts what has been admitted in court, was just a fabrication that the accused made before the police. 8. However, in this particular case, I do not think that the convict was prejudiced by the way plea was taken and the account that the court below preferred, for the magistrate believed the prosecution’s assessment of the facts, It is undeniable that she stabbed the complainant. Further, it is highly unlikely that she just picked up the knife from the ground (a knife that just happened to be there) in the middle of their quarrel; she must have brought the knife when she came to meet the complainant. If one considers that she came armed with a knife to meet the complainant, her version seems less plausible. Thus the conviction is a safe one, 9. Section 241 (a) of the Penal Code states that any person who unlawfully wounds another shall be guilty of'a felony and shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years. In sentencing for unlawful wounding, regard should be had to the extent of the injuries.' In Joseph Kungwezu Banda v Rep,” Mwaungulu J said this about the offence of unlawful wounding: “The appellant contends that the court should have imposed a fine. I do not think so. The offence is serious. It involves bodily harm. Those who commit this offence exude a cruel and sadistic tendency or ' Lucious Chikwekwe v Rep Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2005 * Criminal Appeal Case No. 134 of 1996 Page 3 of 3 trait which is abhorrent to civility and disregard to human suffering. It should be very rare indeed that such conduct should be visited by a fine,’ 10. In Rep v Maxwell Kaunda, the convict pleaded guilty to the offence of unlawful wounding and was convicted. The complainant had sustained two stab wounds of about three and two centimetres deep. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The High Court confirmed the sentence. 11. In the present case, the complainant suffered lacerations on the middle and ring fingers and on the neck. He was sutured at the hospital on the wounds and was given an analgesia. Now considering the injuries that the convict sustained, which are not very serious, the plea of guilt, her apology in court, the young age of the convict and her lack of previous record, I do not think the sentence of two years’ imprisonment with hard labour is lenient, neither is it excessive, and as such I confirm it. Made in open court this day the 18th of July 2022 3 Confirmation Case No. 154 of 2000