Home | News | 2 THIEVES JAILED FOR 37 YEARS

2 THIEVES JAILED FOR 37 YEARS

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

MBABANE – Mpendulo Ginindza and Mancoba Shabangu, the two men who were arrested for stealing items valued at over E100 000 around Mbabane will  be away from the society for 37 years.


The duo, who broke into several houses including the house of Prince Guduza and radio personality Veli Simelane, were sentenced to 55 years imprisonment without an option of a fine, however, the sentenced was reduced to 37 years after Senior Magistrates Nonhlanhla Dlamini suspended some years from the sentences.


The duo had an option to pay a fine of E2 000 in each of five counts after they were convicted of all the 23 counts they were facing.
The conviction of the duo came after the court was convinced the Crown proved the case beyond reasonable doubt despite the plea of not guilty. Shabangu wept bitterly after the delivery of the judgment. In his final submissions, Mbutfo Mbingo, who is represented the Crown in the matter, implored the court to find the duo guilty on all the 23 counts as charged.


Evidence


Mbingo submitted that the evidence of the State was sufficient and beyond reasonable doubt.
He said the fact that some of the stolen items were found in the duo’s relatives’ possession was evident that, Ginindza and Shabangu committed the offences.


He said the duo’s failure to cross-examine their girlfriends, who were found in possession of some of the stolen items, was an indication that they knew the source of the items.


Nicholas Hlophe, who was an accomplice witness, informed the court that he purchased several gadgets, including laptops and cameras, for re-sale from the duo. “The duo never denied having sold the items to Hlophe,” submitted Mbingo.


Hlophe was released from custody after about two weeks after the Crown had decided to make him a State witness.
Mbingo further submitted that even though Shabangu denied ownership of his rented flat where some of the stolen items were retrieved, the fact that he failed to identify e his flat and the landlord was a sign that his defence was far outweighed by the Crown’s evidence.

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image: