A man who was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for allegedly having sex with a mentally ill woman in Luanshya has been acquitted by the Court of Appeal after judges ruled that the prosecution failed to prove a key element of the offence.
According to lawyer Dickson Jere, the case involved a 31-year-old woman said to be mentally ill, who was sent by her mother to buy cooking oil at the market but did not return home that day.
The matter was reported to police and a search was launched, but the woman reportedly returned the following day and informed her family that she had spent the night at a man’s home where she had multiple sexual encounters with him.
The man was later arrested and charged with the offence of “defilement of an imbecile” contrary to Section 139 of the Penal Code.
In court, the accused admitted having sex with the woman but maintained that the two were in a relationship. He further explained that the woman even cooked for him the day she visited and that they often communicated via phone.
The magistrate, after hearing evidence from the woman’s mother and observing the woman in court, concluded that she was mentally ill and convicted the man, referring the matter to the High Court for sentencing.
At the High Court, the judge sentenced the accused to 14 years imprisonment.
However, the man appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that there was no medical evidence presented to prove that the woman was mentally ill. He further stated that he believed the woman was normal and that there was no clear sign of mental illness.
A panel of three judges heard the appeal and stated that mental illness can be proven through observation, evidence from people who know the victim, or through medical reports.
But the court noted that in this case, the woman’s condition was “borderline” and required medical evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt because she appeared to live a normal life.
The judges noted that the woman could be sent to the market, was able to make purchases, and could answer questions, making it difficult to prove her alleged mental illness without a medical report.
“In view of the fact that the prosecutrix was a person who could be sent to the market to make purchases, and she was able to answer questions…this is one of those cases categorized as being ‘borderline’, and which required medical evidence,” the judges ruled.
As a result, the Court of Appeal acquitted the accused and set him free, stating that it was unsafe to imprison someone when a key ingredient of the offence had not been proven.
The case is cited as Douglas Aaron Simukonda v The People – Appeal No. 19/2024, with judgment delivered in January 2026.
Jere further explained that for the prosecution to successfully prove the offence, they needed to establish three things beyond reasonable doubt:
That the man had sex with the victim
That the victim had mental illness
That the man knew the victim was mentally ill
He noted that in this case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew the woman had a mental illness.
Source: Dickson Jere (Legal Commentary)
