Chivi Man Sentenced to 15 Years for Raping a Minor

Gweru - A 36-year-old man from Chivi has been sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment after being convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl in a Mafuta Circle-V compound, Shurugwi.

The accused, Pride Ngundu, was found guilty of rape as defined under Section 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act) [Chapter 9:23] following a fast-track trial concluded on Tuesday, 3 February 2026, at the Shurugwi Magistrates’ Court.

Delivering judgment, Gweru Regional  Magistrate Sibongile Marondedze ruled that the State had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, finding the defence version to be implausible and unsupported by evidence.

“The accused failed to discredit the State witnesses and his defence amounted to a mere denial,” the court ruled.

In sentencing, the court considered both mitigating and aggravating factors, noting that while Ngundu was a first offender, the offence was committed under aggravating circumstances.

The magistrate cited the complainant’s young age, the significant age disparity between the accused and the victim, the manner in which the offence was committed, and the psychological and social impact on the child and her family.

“The offender poses a danger to society, particularly to children, and a custodial sentence is necessary to protect the community,” said Magistrate Marondedze.

Ngundu was accordingly sentenced to an effective 15 years’ imprisonment term, the minimum prescribed sentence for rape committed in aggravating circumstances.

Evidence presented during trial showed that the complainant, a Form Two pupil who was visiting relatives in Shurugwi, was attacked in the early hours of 22 January 2026 after the accused unlawfully gained entry into her sleeping quarters.

The offence came to light later that morning when a family member discovered the accused at the scene. Ngundu attempted to flee but was apprehended and later handed over to the police.

Medical and age-estimation reports, as well as a victim impact statement, were admitted as evidence.

Ngundu had pleaded not guilty, claiming the sexual encounter was consensual and that he was in a relationship with the complainant. The court rejected this version, ruling that it was inconsistent with the evidence and legally untenable given the complainant’s age.

In a victim impact statement, the complainant’s guardian told the court that the offence had disrupted family relations, affected the child’s schooling, and left the family feeling unsafe within the community.

The case was recorded under CR 30/01/26.

In her verdict, Magistrate Sibongile Marondedze said the State had discharged its burden of proof and established the offence beyond reasonable doubt, finding the accused’s defence to be false and unsustainable.

“The evidence led by the State witnesses was credible, consistent and reliable,” the magistrate ruled.

“The accused failed to discredit any of the State witnesses and his version amounted to a bare denial.”

Magistrate Marondedze said the complainant’s testimony was corroborated by surrounding circumstances, including the unlawful entry into the cabin, the accused being found at the scene, and his subsequent attempt to flee.

“The conduct of the accused in running away when discovered is inconsistent with his claim of a consensual relationship,” she said.

The court further rejected the accused’s assertion that the sexual encounter was consensual, noting that the complainant was a minor and that the circumstances described were incompatible with consent.

“If indeed the sexual intercourse was consensual, there would have been no reason for the accused to unlawfully gain entry, administer a substance to the complainant, or flee the scene when discovered,” Magistrate Marondedze ruled.

She also dismissed any suggestion that the allegations had been fabricated, observing that there was no evidence of prior hostility between the parties.

“There is no basis for the court to find that the complainant, a visitor in the area, would falsely implicate a person she had barely known,” the magistrate said.

The court concluded that the accused’s defence had “no merit whatsoever” and found him guilty as charged under Section 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act).