THREE armed robbers, who posed as commuters to hoodwink a motorist to offer them transport before they killed him in cold blood and got away with his vehicle, will spend the rest of their lives behind bars.
Godfrey Marowa, Trymore Tirivavi and David Mupandawana were convicted by High Court judge Justice Munamato Mutevedzi after a full trial.
The three and their accomplices, who are still at large, waylaid an unsuspecting motorist who was taking his car to a secure parking lot.
The court heard that before he could park the vehicle, David Chimbambo was accosted by people who appeared to be desperate for transport from Machipisa in Highfield to Harare city centre.
He abandoned his plans and agreed to transport them in his Honda Fit vehicle.
Chimbambo was found dead the next morning in Waterfalls with his vehicle missing.
He suffered brutal head injuries and this was also reflected in the autopsy report produced in court.
The trio was arrested after it carried out a spate of robberies using Chimbambo’s vehicle.
- Social media has transformed financial services marketing
- Zimuto High to represent Zim at regional debate competition
- Harare school chosen for global debate competition
- Team Zim shines in Kenya
Keep Reading
The three’s luck ran out soon after executing the last robbery when Marowa was apprehended by the public.
His arrest led to that of his accomplices Mupandawana and Tirivavi.
They were all arraigned before the court charged with murder.
They pleaded not guilty and raised various defences which the court threw out leading to their conviction.
The State submitted that the murder was committed in aggravating circumstances because it occurred in the course of a robbery.
The State said once that was ascertained, the offenders could not escape the death penalty, adding that in the absence of “weighty mitigation”, a murder committed in the course of a robbery invariably attracts a death sentence.
In mitigation, the offenders’ lawyers said the offence was not committed in aggravating circumstances because it was not premeditated as they did not know the deceased.
They further submitted that the crime was committed in an amateurish way because the offenders did not cover their faces to conceal their identities.
However, Justice Mutevedzi said it was untrue that the murder was not premeditated.
“It was immaterial that the offenders’ victim was not known. To them, the identity of the victim wasn’t important. What was critical was that they wanted a vehicle.
“They pre-planned how they were going to get that car. They knew exactly what was supposed to be done. The deceased was just unfortunate to inadvertently fall into that scheme of things,” the judge said.
“That it was so does not take away the meticulous planning that must have gone on before the robbery and the murder.
“A gang which plans to rob anyone with a valuable they can covert cannot escape the finding that it premeditated the commission of the offence because it did not know the identity of its victim.”
Justice Mutevedzi said the “daftness of a criminal” could not be allowed to work in his or her favour.
“That the offenders neglected to conceal their identities does not demote their crime from the realm of aggravated murders,” he said.
The judge said the evidence which was there was that the offenders first tied the deceased before battering his head, resulting in gruesome injuries.
“Further the irrefutable evidence is that they took not only his car, but other valuables. The deceased’s wife said he also had US$500 in his possession at the time,” Justice Mutevedzi said.
“The offenders’ plight is compounded by the fact that this was a gang robbery and, therefore, a gang murder. The existence of a multiplicity of the circumstances, as in this case, must, however, serve to worsen the offender’s plight. We are, therefore, bound to go by one of the three options prescribed under s47(4)(a) of the code.
“The criticisms targeted at capital punishment are sometimes very justified. Those who call for its abolition have in many instances gone for broke and said it is nothing else but judicial barbarism.”
He said the court was not prepared to go into that debate in this case.
“It is unnecessary. All we can do is to exercise our discretion and refrain from imposing it because of its uselessness in this particular case,” he saida.
“Instead, we believe that the same aim of demonstrating society’s displeasure at those who, for very selfish reasons, sink so low as to take others’ lives can be achieved by permanently removing such elements from society.
“The murder was totally unnecessary. The gang could have simply violently taken the vehicle from the deceased and left him alive.”
