Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.
Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.
Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.
Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.
Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.
Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.
**S v NDEBU & ANOR 1985 (2) ZLR 45 (S)**1985 (2) ZLR p45
Criminal law — socius criminis — dissociation — when effective as a defence.
Criminal procedure — sentence — murder — dissociation by socius not amounting to a defence — a major feature of extenuation.
The appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. During the $\epsilon$ course of a housebreaking at a dwelling known by the appellants to be occupied at the time, the appellants were surprised by the householder. The second appellant, not in possession of a firearm, immediately fled and had already run some distance away before he heard the sound of the gunshot fired by the first appellant which killed the deceased.
Held in order to afford himself a defence to the crime with which the principal $\epsilon$ offender is charged, a socius criminis who is present, abetting in the commission of a crime, must do more than merely withdraw from the scene of the crime; in particular, he must do something positive to avert the danger which his recklessness has brought about.
Held, further, a withdrawal by an accomplice from the scene of a murder, in $\sigma$ circumstances which do not amount to a defence, may nevertheless be a major feature of extenuation.
Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.