High Court quashes 20-year rape sentence, slams lower court for “speculative and flawed” judgment

THE High Court has overturned the 20-year jail term imposed on a Mudzi man, William Smoko, who had been convicted of rape, blasting the lower court for convicting him on “speculative, contradictory, and uncorroborated” evidence.

In a recent judgment delivered by judges of appeal, Justices Esther Muremba and Deputy Judge President Munyaradzi Mawadze, the High Court found that the State had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, ruling that the complainant’s story was riddled with inconsistencies and credibility gaps.

“I am unable to conclude that the State proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,” Muremba ruled.

She added that the magistrate’s analysis “fell far short of the rigorous scrutiny required in criminal trials where the liberty of an accused person is at stake.”

Smoko had been convicted of raping a 34-year-old woman from a neighbouring village following a long-running feud over a faulty cellphone and a missing shovel. The alleged incident was said to have occurred after the woman accused Smoko of cheating her in a phone swap deal and later of stealing gold ore from her husband’s artisanal mining venture.

But the High Court said these prior disputes cast serious doubt on the complainant’s motives.

“These circumstances cast a shadow over her motives and raise legitimate concerns about possible fabrication of the rape allegations,” Muremba said.

The court described the complainant’s version as “both contradictory and implausible,” noting that she claimed Smoko assaulted her in broad daylight, reported him to the police, and yet chose to sleep alone with only a three-year-old child that same night despite fearing his return.

“The absence of any meaningful explanation for these decisions raises serious doubts about the reliability of her version of events,” the judge said.

Muremba further criticised the magistrate for relying on unverified assumptions.

“At no point during the trial did the accused admit to visiting the complainant’s homestead on the date in question… It was therefore incorrect for the learned regional magistrate to conclude that it was ‘common cause’ that the accused had gone to the complainant’s homestead.”

The judge also faulted the State for failing to produce key evidence, including the torn clothing the complainant claimed had been ripped during the alleged assault.

“The absence of such physical evidence, particularly when its existence is explicitly claimed, significantly undermines the credibility of the complainant’s testimony,” she ruled.

On the medical findings, Justice Muremba noted that the report only showed “healed hymenal tears” inconsistent with a recent sexual assault and that the bruises could not conclusively be linked to the alleged rape.

The High Court found that the magistrate had wrongly dismissed the defence evidence, including that of Smoko’s wife, who testified that her husband was at home on the night of the alleged attack.

“The court’s conclusion that the accused’s wife had placed him at the complainant’s homestead is speculative and unsupported by the evidence.”

The court then ruled that the inconsistencies, contradictions, and lack of corroboration rendered the conviction unsafe.

 “A conviction must rest on evidence that is persuasive and free from reasonable doubt.

“That is not the case here.”

“The liberty of the accused is at stake. The credibility of the complainant must be evaluated in light of all relevant circumstances, including any potential motive to mislead.”

Smoko’s conviction and sentence were accordingly set aside.