S v CHINGURUME 2014 (2) ZLR 260 (H)

Flynote

Evidence — single witness — approach to be taken — cautions to be observed before convicting on the evidence of a single witness

Headnote

There is need to exercise extreme caution when one has to rely on the evidence of a single witness in order to guard against possible deception in the whole process. The right to convict on the evidence of a single credible witness, stated without qualifying words in s 269 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07], should not be regarded as putting the evidence of one witness on the same footing in regard to the cogency of the evidence of more than one.

Although the evidence of one witness may, in any particular case, be more convincing than that of a number, it remains true that, given the same apparent quality of the witnesses, the more there are, the more reason there is to accept their story. It is not a mere rule of thumb that, if there are two or more witnesses to the same facts, their version can be checked against each other to see if they have given honest and accurate evidence. Elements of corroboration may of course appear from the circumstances; the fact that an accused person has given no evidence may be an element. The apparent reluctance to accept easily the evidence of a single witness is demonstrated by the proviso to s 269, which renders it incompetent for the court to rely on such evidence in respect of certain offences specified therein. Even in other offences like assault, our courts have espoused the need to exercise caution when dealing with the evidence of a single witness. The courts should avoid the "boxing match" approach: the tendency, especially in assault cases, to throw the two protagonists into the ring with the magistrate as referee. At the end of the bout the

magistrate awards points for demeanour and probability, and names the winner, who is usually the complainant.