…as the Court of Appeal reduces his sentence by 19 years
Moorosi Tsiane
A Mokhotlong businessman, Lepota Natsoane, breathed a sigh of relief on Friday after the Court of Appeal reduced his 29-year jail sentence to 10 years for the 2021 killing of his wife, ’Malehasa Natsoane.
Presiding over the case, Court of Appeal President Professor Kananelo Mosito said the trial judge, Justice Mabatšoeneng Hlaele, had failed to establish whether there was intent on the part of Natsoane to murder his wife on the night in question.
“The problem is that the learned judge did not determine the aspect of intention, and it became quite a challenge to understand how she arrived at a sentence of 29 years. Intention can take two forms: direct intention or legal intention (negligence),” Prof Mosito said.
He said both parties agreed during appeal proceedings that the High Court had not adequately addressed the question of intent, and therefore the harsh sentence could not stand.
As a result, the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence from 29 years to 15 years, with five years suspended.
“The difficulty here is that the learned judge seems to have omitted to determine intention. There is no reference to intent in the judgment, so we don’t know whether the accused had the necessary intent. During deliberations in this court, both parties agreed there was no intention, although the act itself was not denied. They accepted that this is a case of culpable homicide. Consequently, the accused is found guilty of culpable homicide as opposed to murder,” Prof Mosito ruled.
This means Natsoane will now serve 10 years behind bars instead of 29.
The case began in January 2023. After hearing evidence from nine Crown witnesses, Justice Hlaele found Natsoane guilty in April 2023. The Crown, represented by Advocate Lehalanako Mofilikoane, had successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt that Natsoane had indeed killed his wife.
Crown witnesses included the deceased’s younger sister, Boikanyo Matjeane (a nurse at Mokhotlong Hospital); investigating officer Detective Lance Sergeant Lesuoa; Detective Inspector Pitso; Police Constable Sekhonyana; the deceased’s uncle, Motlalentoa Matsumunyane; the accused’s sister, Mampe Natsoane; and Tau and Makhahliso Ramakoloi. The defence, led by Advocate Lintle Motšoehli, called two witnesses: the accused’s younger brother, Moeketsi, and their aunt, Mateboho Lejaha.
According to the evidence presented, Natsoane had an altercation with his wife on the morning of 21 May 2021, after she returned home around 4:00 a.m., allegedly drunk. When questioned, the deceased said she had attended a friend’s party in a nearby village. A fight ensued, leading to the destruction of an electric lamp and the headboard door, which were found on the floor of the couple’s bedroom by the first witness, Likeleli.
Detective Lance Sergeant Lesuoa testified that the accused had told him that they had a quarrel and that he had beaten his wife. He claimed she fell at the gate while running away.
In his defence, Adv Motšoehli argued that there was no witness who could confirm that the accused had assaulted his wife. During mitigation and the presentation of extenuating circumstances, he pleaded for a lighter sentence, arguing that the accused had been provoked.
“My Lady, the accused was provoked by his wife’s behaviour—coming home intoxicated in the early hours and ignoring his phone calls. He was entitled to be angry, and those are the facts that led to his reaction,” Adv Motšoehli submitted.
He further stated that the accused was a first-time offender, a primary caregiver to their two children (now living with their maternal grandmother), and an employer of 34 people whose livelihoods depended on him.
In response, Adv Mofilikoane emphasized the gravity of the offence.
“Murder is undoubtedly the most serious offence that can be committed. The accused has denied the deceased the opportunity to raise her children. She was killed by someone who had a duty to protect her.”
In delivering the original sentence, Justice Hlaele dismissed the defence’s arguments, stating that such reasoning risked normalizing gender-based violence.
“The discomfort I express with the notion that a spouse may be ‘entitled’ to act out of anger and have it condoned under the pretext of passion or love is that such reasoning promotes gender-based violence. Where do we draw the line? How many graveyards must be filled?” she asked.
“Partners suffer so much violence at the hands of their loved ones under this misplaced anger and sense of entitlement.”