News / National
HIV saves robber from life sentence
02 May 2016 at 11:41hrs | Views
In a land mark case, HIV status spared an armed robber life sentence after the High Court condemned the man to 25 years in jail for killing a Kuwadzana resident during a robbery. Justice Joseph Musakwa found Cosmas Jumo guilty of murdering Remember Mupasi on May 27, 2014, along 270th Street, Kuwadzana 3 in Harare.
Mupasi was walking home from work at night when he met his demise. Jumo's accomplice Chimika Bauti committed suicide while in police cells. Addressing the court in aggravation, prosecutor Purity Chikangaise, did not go for the death penalty because there is no law in terms of which a court can pass the capital punishment. She urged the court to impose a life sentence.
Pleading leniency, lawyer Advocate Tawanda Zhuwarara, submitted that in spite of conviction of murder, Jumo should be spared the life sentence. Generally, when one is found guilty of murder he is sentenced to death or a life sentence. But the Advocate argued that Jumo was HIV positive and a lengthy incarceration would hasten the deterioration of his health and lead to his early demise.
While the advocate accepted that Jumo was receiving ARVs in prison such was not augmented by an appropriate diet.
Justice Musakwa was convinced by the novel argument and also observed that while ARVs could prolong the life of an HIV positive person, the conditions and the diet in prisons were not conducive for healthy positive living.
Adv Zhuwarara highlighted the fact that Jumo and his wife had been assaulted and tortured during their arrest. Thus, he argued, such torture was in itself punishment which the court was compelled to consider in assessing appropriate sentence.
Justice Musakwa then ruled that had it not been for the HIV status and the fact that Jumo had been subjected to torture, the court would not have hesitated in condemning him to life imprisonment.
He then imposed a 25-year term of imprisonment. The judgment is significant as it marks the courts' acceptance of someone's HIV status as a relevant consideration in determining the sentence.
The judgment is also very significant as it accepts that prison conditions are not the best for persons who are HIV positive. Justice Musakwa also agreed that the torture experienced by Jumo in police hands was a relevant factor in giving him a sentence less than life imprisonment.
The prosecution cracked the case entirely on circumstantial evidence. A criminal trial, which is based on circumstantial evidence puts an extra burden on the courts while appreciating the evidence. The court has to be swayed by the nature and gravity of the evidence and it has to judge the evidence with much more care and caution.
Mupasi was walking home from work at night when he met his demise. Jumo's accomplice Chimika Bauti committed suicide while in police cells. Addressing the court in aggravation, prosecutor Purity Chikangaise, did not go for the death penalty because there is no law in terms of which a court can pass the capital punishment. She urged the court to impose a life sentence.
Pleading leniency, lawyer Advocate Tawanda Zhuwarara, submitted that in spite of conviction of murder, Jumo should be spared the life sentence. Generally, when one is found guilty of murder he is sentenced to death or a life sentence. But the Advocate argued that Jumo was HIV positive and a lengthy incarceration would hasten the deterioration of his health and lead to his early demise.
While the advocate accepted that Jumo was receiving ARVs in prison such was not augmented by an appropriate diet.
Justice Musakwa was convinced by the novel argument and also observed that while ARVs could prolong the life of an HIV positive person, the conditions and the diet in prisons were not conducive for healthy positive living.
Adv Zhuwarara highlighted the fact that Jumo and his wife had been assaulted and tortured during their arrest. Thus, he argued, such torture was in itself punishment which the court was compelled to consider in assessing appropriate sentence.
Justice Musakwa then ruled that had it not been for the HIV status and the fact that Jumo had been subjected to torture, the court would not have hesitated in condemning him to life imprisonment.
He then imposed a 25-year term of imprisonment. The judgment is significant as it marks the courts' acceptance of someone's HIV status as a relevant consideration in determining the sentence.
The judgment is also very significant as it accepts that prison conditions are not the best for persons who are HIV positive. Justice Musakwa also agreed that the torture experienced by Jumo in police hands was a relevant factor in giving him a sentence less than life imprisonment.
The prosecution cracked the case entirely on circumstantial evidence. A criminal trial, which is based on circumstantial evidence puts an extra burden on the courts while appreciating the evidence. The court has to be swayed by the nature and gravity of the evidence and it has to judge the evidence with much more care and caution.
Source - chronilce
