Rex V Leche Sebele (CRI/T/0049/2023) [2024] LSHC 89 (28 May 2024)

# Rex V Leche Sebele (CRI/T/0049/2023) [2024] LSHC 89 (28 May 2024) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/89/eng@2024-05-28) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/89/eng@2024-05-28) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/89/eng@2024-05-28) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/89/eng@2024-05-28) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from LesLII: Rex V Leche Sebele \(CRI/T/0049/2023\) \[2024\] LSHC …&body=https://lesotholii.org/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/89/eng@2024-05-28) [ Download PDF (259.9 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/89/eng@2024-05-28/source) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download PDF (259.9 KB) ](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2024/89/eng@2024-05-28/source) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Rex V Leche Sebele (CRI/T/0049/2023) [2024] LSHC 89 (28 May 2024) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Rex V Leche Sebele (CRI/T/0049/2023) [2024] LSHC 89 (28 May 2024) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2024] LSHC 89 Copy Hearing date 28 May 2024 Court [High Court](/judgments/LSHC/) Case number CRI/T/0049/2023 Judges [Mokoko J](/judgments/all/?judges=Mokoko%20J) Judgment date 28 May 2024 Language English Summary Read full summary * * * Skip to document content **IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO** **Held at Maseru** **CRI/T/0049/2023** In the matter between **REX CROWN** And **LECHE SEBELE ACCUSED** _Neutral Citation_ : Rex vs Leche Sebele [2024] LSHC 89 CRIM (28th May 2024). **CORAM :** T.J. MOKOKO J **DATE HEARD :** 28TH MAY 2024 **DATE DELIVERED :** 28TH MAY 2024 **_SUMMARY_** Accused pleaded guilty to culpable homicide. Crown accepted plea of culpable homicide – Application of _section 240 (1) (a) of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981_ \- Court returned verdict of Culpable homicide. **_ANNOTATIONS_** __Cited Cases__ 1. _Rex v Ranthithi and Another_ _LAC 2007- 2008 245_ 2. _Rex v Tumelo Manesa_ _CRI/S/4/10[[2011] LSHC 45](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2011/45)_ __Statutes__ 1. _Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981_ 2. _Penal Code Act, 2010_ **JUDGMENT** **Introduction** [1] The accused was charged with contravention of _section 40 (1) of thePenal Code Act, 2010, read with section 40 (2) thereof_. In that upon or about the 02nd March 2019, at or near Ha Ranko in the district of Mafeteng, the said accused did perform an unlawful act or omission with the intention of causing the death of ‘Mamahlomola Sebele. [2] The accused pleaded guilty to culpable homicide. The crown accepted his plea. The crown applied that the court should return a verdict without hearing any evidence, in terms _of section 240 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_ , (Act). _Section 240 (1) (a) of the Act_ provides that: _If a person charged with any offence before any court pleads guilty to that offence or to an offence of which he might be found guilty on that charge, and the prosecutor accepts that plea the court may –_ 1. _If it is the High Court, and the person has pleaded guilty to any offence other than murder, bring in a verdict without hearing any evidence;_ **Summary of Facts** [3] The brief outline of facts is that on the 02nd March 2019, the accused came home from herding his livestock. When he got to his house, his wife (the deceased) was not there. Between 08:00 pm and 09:00 pm, when the accused was already in bed, the deceased arrived at their home. She asked the accused to open the door for her. The accused told the deceased to go back to where she came from. However, the deceased persistent on knocking until the accused opened the door for her. An argument ensued between the accused and the deceased, whereupon the accused took a stick and hit the deceased with it on her back. They separated and slept in different bedrooms. In the morning the accused went to check on the deceased, and he discovered that his wife was no more. He raised an alarm, and the matter was reported to the police. The court then returned a verdict of guilty to culpable homicide. **SENTENCING** **Mitigation** [4] The crown stated that the accused has no record of previous convictions. On mitigation of sentence Adv. Thoahlane, counsel for the accused submitted that at the commission of this offence the accused was sixty years old and is currently aged sixty-five years old. The deceased is the wife of the accused. When the accused learned that the deceased had passed on, he raised hue and cry. He volunteered that his phone be used to alert the police about this tragic incident. The accused pleaded with the police to allow him to prepare and arrange for the burial of his wife. After the funeral of the deceased, the accused handed himself over to the police, and he was arrested. Adv. Thoahlane submitted that the accused’s conduct was a sign that he was remorseful of his actions. The accused suffers from high blood pressure and is HIV positive, thus takes his medication on daily basis. It was submitted on behalf of the deceased that he pleaded guilty thus saved court’s valuable time. Adv. Thoahlane submitted on behalf of the accused that at all material times, the deceased and the accused lived together peacefully, without any previous record of fights, and that this tragic incident was just an unfortunate situation. Adv. Thoahlane pleaded that the court should be merciful in punishing this accused person, therefore he asked the court to impose a suspended sentence on him given his health conditions. [5] On aggravation of sentence, Adv. Mokuku - the crown counsel stated that there were no aggravating circumstances. **Court Analysis on Sentencing** [6] When coming to the appropriate and just sentence in this matter the court considered the nature of the crime, the offender, and the interests of society. In the case of **_Rex v Ranthithi and Another_**[1], **Ramodibedi JA** , as he then was, stated that in determining a proper sentence, it is necessary to have regard to the trial consisting of the offence, the offender, and the interests of society. [7] In the case of **_Rex v Tumelo Manesa_**[2], **Majara J** , as she then was, when dealing with mitigating factors for sentence, had this to say: "_I now proceed to consider the factors that were pleaded on the accused’s behalf in mitigation of his sentence to wit: that he is a first offender, he showed remorse by pleading guilty to the charge and thus saving court’s time, he is uneducated thus his distinction between right and wrong differs from that of a more educated person. I do accept that all these should count in the accused’s favour. However, as I have stated, I also have to strike a proper balance between those factors and others such as the nature of the offence, the interests of the victim and those of society at large. Further, it is my view that it does not take education for one to know that use of force and violence against other human beings is a terrible and unjustifiable thing. I have already stated that every member of society looks up to the courts for the protection of the vulnerable and censure and punish crime. I most certainly have the duty to fiercely guard and promote the rule of law, not to mention winning back the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system, which has steadily been eroded over time_ ”. [8] In passing the appropriate sentence in this matter, I have considered that the accused is the first offender, which means that he is not someone prone to offending against the law. I take this accused person as a fallen angel. The accused pleaded guilty to culpable homicide, thus saved the court’s valuable time, and it is also a sign that the accused is remorseful of his actions. After the commission of this offence the accused raised an alarm and through his phone, this tragic incident was reported to the police. I have considered that his conduct showed that the accused was sorry for his actions. The accused pleaded with the police, to be given an opportunity to prepare and arrange for the descent burial of his wife. Having been given this opportunity, the accused surrendered himself to the police after the funeral of the deceased. His conduct shows that the accused was remorseful and ready to face the consequences of his actions, as he did not flee. [9] I have considered that on the fateful night, the accused came home from herding the animals. The deceased was not present at home, and I want to believe the accused expected his wife to be present at home and to offer him some food. The accused went to bed in the absence of his wife. Later his wife, (the deceased) came home drunk and demanded the accused to open the door for her. I want to believe that the accused was irritated by the fact that the deceased was disturbing his rest, as he was already in bed. This irritation was compounded by the fact that the deceased was not home when the accused arrived from herding the livestock, and that she was drunk. I have considered all these factors in imposing the appropriate and just sentence in this matter. I have considered the fact that the accused is now aged sixty-five years. That he is suffering from high blood pressure and is HIV positive. I have had an opportunity to look at the accused while in the dock, and he looked frail to me. I formed an opinion that this could be due to his health conditions. I observed the accused during trial, and his demeanour showed that he was remorseful of his actions. I have considered that the accused is not employed. I have considered that the accused appeared before court, without failure on all occasions, this court directed him to do so. His conduct shows his respect for the courts of law. [10] I have concluded that the appropriate sentence that will fit this offence, the offender, and the interests of society, in the circumstances of this matter is the following; **ORDER** 1. The accused is sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment, the whole of which is suspended for three (3) years on condition that the accused is not involved in a crime involving violence. My Assessors Agree. _______________________ T.J. MOKOKO JUDGE **FOR ACCUSED : ADV. P.R THOAHLANE** **FOR CROWN : ADV. T. MOKUKU** * * * [1] LAC 2007- 2008 245 [2] CRI/S/4/10 [2011] LSHC 45 (31 March 2011) #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >