By DELPHINE ZULU –

.Mukata

THE State has urged the Lusaka High Court to find Chilanga Member of Parliament Keith Mukata guilty of murdering his security guard on circumstantial evidence.
The is a matter where Mukata, also a lawyer and his co-accused Charmaine Musonda are facing one count of murdering Namakambwa  Mushabati on May 6,2017.
In its final submission, the State submitted that the prosecution had proved its case against Mukata beyond all reasonable doubt as required in the case of Woolmington versus Director of Public Prosecution of 1935.
On his co accused the State invited the court to make a finding of facts from the evidence because it is common at law that where an accused does not give evidence the court has to draw  proper inferences from the evidence it has before it, like the matter at hand where Musonda opted to remain silent.
The State submitted that although there was no direct evidence connecting both accused persons with the offence, the circumstantial evidence adequately connects Mukata with the commission of the crime.
“It has been established that there were only three people on the premises, the accused and the deceased and that Mukata was in possession of a fire arm. He is the one who fired the three gunshots that lead to the death of one of them,” the State submitted.
The evidence by the ballistic expert was supported by other circumstantial evidence that was cogent and more probable that the gun operated by Mukata was one and the same that was used to kill the deceased.
The State also submitted that the ballistic expert was emphatic in his testimony that the gun found at the scene of crime and produced  as exhibit P4 was the one that was loaded, discharged and ejected three cartridge cases found at the scene and Mukata admitted having fired three shots saying this was the same gunshots that caused the wound of the deceased.
“All in all my lady, we submit that the prosecution has discharged it’s burden of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt although the evidence connecting Mukata is circumstantial, we implore this Court to make a finding of guilty as in the case of Naweji verses the People,” reads the submission.
The State further submitted that there was no evidence to support the assertion that there were intruders on that particular day.
On the argument on why the State failed to take a pathologist to court, it said the defence was fully aware of how it tried to bring him but was unwell and travelled abroad for medical attention.
It said the fact that the pathologist was called was further proof of such knowledge.