Soldier wins appeal against sentence over wife battering

A MEMBER of the Zimbabwe National Army, who was sentenced to 12 months in jail for escaping from police custody after his arrest for bashing his wife, got a reprieve after the Bulawayo High Court granted his appeal against sentence.

Watson Bhebhe (24) was in March arrested for assaulting his wife all over the body and pulling her braids.

Bhebhe was also accused of malicious damage to property after he smashed his wife's cellphone.

He was also charged with escaping from lawful custody after his arrest and detention at Luveve Police Station, on March 19, when he was taken out of cells to record a statement.

Bhebhe was taken to Western Commonage Courts, where he pleaded guilty to all counts and was convicted before being asked to pay a fine of $200 or spend two months in jail for assault.

He was also sentenced to three months in jail for malicious damage of property, wholly suspended on condition he restituted his wife $250 for the value of the mobile phone he crushed.

For escape from lawful custody, he was sentenced to 12 months in jail. The magistrate said escape from lawful custody was a serious offence which needed a deterrent sentence.

Bhebhe, aggrieved by the sentence, filed an appeal at the Bulawayo High Court challenging the 12-month jail term.

He said the custodial sentence was harsh and the lower court had erred in not considering community service as an option and in overemphasising the issue of deterrence to would-be offenders.

Judge Justice Nicholas Mathonsi, sitting with Justice Maxwell Takuva, granted Bhebhe the appeal.

In his ruling, Justice Mathonsi said the State conceded that Bhebhe's appeal had merit and that the court a quo misdirected itself in imposing a custodial sentence.

"The appellant (Bhebhe) is gainfully employed as an army officer … He is married with one minor child and also looks after his three siblings, who are attending school. What brought him to the police station, where he escaped, was a domestic altercation with his wife. The wife testified in court that she had forgiven him and wanted him to go back to work," he ruled.

"Clearly, the main offence, which the appellant escaped for, was no longer an issue. The escape itself, therefore, paled as well. The magistrate seemed inclined to punish him for the benefit of society.

"In the result, it is ordered that the appeal against sentence in respect of count three is, hereby, upheld.

"The sentence of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with … a fine of $100 or in default of payment one month imprisonment. In addition, three months imprisonment wholly suspended for three years on condition the appellant does not, during that period, commit any offence involving escaping from lawful custody."