R v T'sepo Mofokoane (CRI/T/0182/2024) [2025] LSHC 257 (6 August 2025)

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO** **Held in Maseru** **CRI/T/0182/2024** In the matter between **REX CROWN** And **TS’EPO MOFOKOANE ACCUSED** _Neutral Citation_ : Rex vs Ts’epo Mofokoane [[2025] LSHC 195](/akn/ls/judgment/lshc/2025/195) CRIM (06th August 2025) **CORAM** : T.J. MOKOKO J **HEARD** : 04/08/2025 **DELIVERED** : 06/08/2025 **_SUMMARY_** **_Murder-_**_Accused pleaded guilty to Culpable homicide- Application of the provisions of section 240 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981- Brief Outline of Facts disclosed the commission of the offence, to which the accused pleaded guilty._ **__ANNOTATIONS__** __Cited Cases__ __Statutes__ 1. _Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_ 2. _Penal Code[Act No.6 of 2010](/akn/ls/act/2010/6)_ **JUDGMENT** **Introduction** [1] The accused is charged with contravening _section 40 (1) of the Penal Code[Act No.6 of 2010](/akn/ls/act/2010/6), read with section 40 (2) thereof_. In that upon or about the 25th October 2019 at or near Rasitimela High Schoool in the district of Berea, the said accused did perform an unlawful act or omission, with the intention of causing the death of Leloko ‘Matli. [2] The accused pleaded guilty to culpable homicide. The crown accepted the accused’s plea. _Section 240 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1981_ provides thus: _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- 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;_ **Brief Outline of Facts** [3] The court directed the Crown Counsel to make a brief outline of facts. The brief facts are that the accused, along with his friends, went to Rasetimela High School in search of their friend. They encountered the deceased, who began to insult the accused with harsh words. The accused protested, but people intervened in this altercation. However, the deceased continued to hurl insults at the accused. During this altercation, the deceased produced a knife and stabbed the accused on the chest. In retaliation, the accused stabbed the deceased on the chest, and this prompted the deceased to be taken to the hospital. Two days later the deceased succumbed to his injury. [4] The post-mortem report shows that death was due to a stab wound to the chest that caused hemopneumothorax. [5] The medical report in respect of the accused shows that the accused sustained a laceration on the left parasternal anterior above the left medial to the nipple, and a second laceration on the left small area ventral region. Degree of force inflicted: severe. Degree of injury to life: severe. Degree of immediate disability: severe. Degree of long-term disability: partial. Cause of injury: knife. **Court’s Decision** [6] The facts outlined revealed the commission of the offence to which the accused pleaded guilty. Consequently, the Court found the accused guilty of culpable homicide. The Crown indicated that the accused has no prior convictions. **Mitigation of Sentence** [7] Adv. Lesuthu, the defence Counsel, submitted that the accused is the first offender; therefore, the court may consider imposing a suspended sentence on the accused. At the time of the commission of this offence the accused was 19 years old thus a youth, and currently the accused is aged 25 years old. The accused is currently married with a one and two-month-old baby, and he is self-employed as a motor mechanic. The accused studied up to Form C. The accused’s family approached the area chief of the deceased’s family, so that the chief could facilitate the meeting between the two families. However, the Chief advised the accused’s family not to approach the deceased’s family, due to the fact that the deceased’s family was very hostile to them. This turn of events, therefore, aborted the accused family‘s desire to compensate the deceased’s family. **Aggravation of Sentence** [8] Adv. Mokuku, the Crown Counsel, submitted that it is imperative that the court should strive to make a balance between the interests of society and the interests of the accused. The deceased was a scholar, and this unfortunate incident occurred when the deceased was at school. He submitted that it is generally presumed that the school is a safe environment; therefore, courts restore the presumption that when children go to school, they will be safe. He further submitted that culpable homicide is a serious offence; therefore, the court should pass a sentence that will indicate the seriousness of this offence, and by so doing, the courts will restore public confidence in the criminal justice system. **SENTENCING** [9] In passing the appropriate sentence, the court should consider the interests of society, the seriousness of the offence and the interests of the accused. The court has considered that the accused is the first time offender. This indicates that the accused is not prone to violating the law. The accused pleaded guilty to culpable homicide, which indicates that the accused was sorry and remorseful for his actions. The accused’s plea shows that the accused is ready to face the consequences of his actions. By pleading guilty, the accused has saved the court’s valuable time and resources. [10] The court has noted that at the time of committing this offence, the accused was 19 years old, which classifies him as a youth. Both the accused and the deceased were young boys, and the court believes that their actions on that day were undoubtedly affected by their immaturity. [11] The court has considered that the deceased persistently insulted the accused with raw insults, and the deceased did not stop in his conduct despite several interventions. As if that was not enough, the deceased produced a knife and stabbed the accused on the chest first. Similarly, the accused produced a knife and stabbed the deceased on the chest, and unfortunately, the deceased succumbed to his injury. [12] I have considered that the deceased was the aggressor, as he produced the knife first and stabbed the accused. The accused’s medical report shows that the accused sustained a serious stab wound to the chest also, which is a delicate part of the body, and it was fortunate that the accused survived the attack. [13] The court has considered that the accused is a first time offender. This factor means that the accused is not prone to offending against the law. The accused should be taken as a fallen angel and be given a second chance in life, as the court should not close the door on him. [14] The accused has pleaded guilty to culpable homicide, which shows that he feels remorse for his actions. By entering this plea, the accused has also spared the court valuable time and resources. The court acknowledges that he is willing to take responsibility for what he has done, and this willingness has been considered when determining the appropriate sentence. [15] In determining the appropriate sentence, the court recognises that this tragic incident took place in October 2019. The accused has been burdened by the uncertainty of this matter for the past six years, which has loomed over him like a dark cloud. The court acknowledges that it has taken a total of six years for the accused to learn his fate, and this prolonged uncertainty has served as a punishment in itself. [16] The court has acknowledged that the accused is 25 years old, married, and has a one-year-old child. He is the primary breadwinner for his family. The court also noted that the accused’s family sought to reach out to the deceased’s family regarding compensation. However, the chief advised them against making contact to prevent any potential confrontation, as the deceased’s family was still upset with the accused’s family. [17] The court has considered that the most appropriate sentence, which will serve the interests of justice in this matter, is the following. **Order** 1. The accused is sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment, the whole of which is suspended for three years, on condition that the accused is not involved in any offence involving violence. **_____________________** **T.J. MOKOKO** **JUDGE** **FOR THE CROWN :** ADV. MOKUKU **FOR THE ACCUSED** **:** ADV. CHALLA