Recent Case: General principles and specific offences

• Author: Hoctor, S.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v34/i3a4
• Published date: 23 February 2022
• Date: 23 February 2022
• Citation: (2021) 34 SACJ 482
• Pages: 482-493

General principles and

specic offences

SHANNON HOCTOR

Stellenbosch University

1 General principles

1.1 Private defence

The appellant in the case of S v Janki 2021 JDR 2267 (KZP) had been

convicted of assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm in the

court a quo, following an incident where he shot the complainant in the

legs. This conviction was then taken on appeal to the KwaZulu-Natal

High Court ( Janki v S (AR65/2020) [2021] ZAK ZPHC 67 (19 August

2021)), where the court was required to assess whether the appellant

could rely on the justication ground of private defence. (The fur ther

issue that the appeal court was required to address, relating to the

appellant’s disqualication from possessing a rearm, is not discussed

be lo w.)

The following facts were common cause: that the complainant was

shot by the appellant; that the shooting took place after an argument

between the complainant on one side, and the brother and father

of the appellant, as well as a third person, on the ot her; and that

the wounds sustained by the complainant (the nature of which were

agreed by the parties) were caused by a single gunshot (at para [13]).

The version of the complainant and the appellant differed as follows. It

was averred by the complainant that the argument broke out after the

complainant alleged that the appellant’s brother had taken a tarpaulin

from the complainant’s employer. According to the complainant, this

resulted in a gun being pointed at him by the appellant’s brother, and

the third person slapping him. A fter the complainant withdrew to the

workshop, he was confronted by the appellant, who shot him, and

then left the scene without rendering any assistance. The complainant

was taken to hospital as a result of being shot, where he remained

for four months (at paras [10]–[11]). The appellant’s version of events

was that he shot the complainant in defence of his person, when the

RECENT CASES

https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v34/i3a4

482

(2021) 34 SACJ 482

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd