S v Mapokone

JudgeSouthwood J, Jooste AJ
Judgment Date14 November 2006
Citation2006 JDR 0851 (T)
Docket NumberA356/06
Hearing Date09 October 2006
CourtTransvaal Provincial Division

Southwood J:

[1]

On 9 June 2003 and in the Polokwane regional court the appellants were each found guilty of two counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances (robbing Moses Molete on 12 August 2000 of R2 000 in cash, his truck with registration DVV186N and a cellphone and robbing Asnat Molete on 12 August 2000 of R2 400 in cash, a wedding ring, a watch and a necklace, aggravating circumstances being present because of the use of a firearm) and the second appellant was found guilty of attempted murder (shooting Asnat Molete). On 30 June 2003

2006 JDR 0851 p2

Southwood J

the regional court sentenced each of the appellants to 15 years imprisonment on each of the robbery counts and the second appellant to 15 years imprisonment on the count of attempted murder. The regional court ordered that the sentences not run concurrently. In effect the regional court sentenced the first and third appellants each to 30 years imprisonment and the second appellant to 45 years imprisonment.

[2]

The appellants appeal against the convictions and the sentences imposed.

[3]

It is not in dispute that on 12 August 2000 and at about 18:00 three men entered Moses Molete's general dealer's store and held him at gunpoint while they assaulted him, ransacked the premises and stole his cellphone, approximately R2 000 in cash and took his truck. It is also not in dispute that after robbing Moses Molete the three men dragged him to his house approximately 30 metres away where they found his wife Asnat Molete, the second complainant, watching television. The three men demanded money and when the second complainant said she did not have any the man armed with the firearm fired a shot into the doorframe. The second complainant then produced R2 400 in cash and threw it onto the floor. The man with the firearm told her that she was playing and demanded more money. He took her necklace, watch and ring. When she threw the money onto the floor the man shot her in the groin. She sat down in a chair and the

2006 JDR 0851 p3

Southwood J

men tied her up. She lost consciousness and came to in the hospital. After this, the three men took Moses Molete back to the store where they put him into a fridge using cement bags to hold the lid down. They then left in his truck. In the course of the robbery Moses Molete was seriously assaulted.

[4]

The primary issue in the court below and on appeal is whether the three appellants were the men who attacked and robbed the two complainants. The appellants contend that the regional court erred in finding that they were the three men involved in the robberies. The appellants also contend that there was a splitting of charges and that they were denied their right to a fair trial. After pleading not guilty the first and third appellants said they did not know anything about the matter and the second appellant exercised his right to remain silent. When they testified they did not admit that they were involved in the robbery.

[5]

The identification of the appellants as the robbers was dependent upon -

(1)

the evidence of the two complainants: Moses Molete saw the three men at the time of the robbery and at the identification parade where he identified the first and second appellants: Asnat Molete saw the three men at the time of the robbery but did not see them again until the case came to court;

2006 JDR 0851 p4

Southwood J

(2)

the evidence of the investigating officer, Inspector Molamola, that Moses Molete gave him a description of the three robbers and that he, Molamola, conveyed this description to Inspector Kekana who used it to identify the first and second appellants and arrest them;

(3)

the evidence of Inspector Kekana that, relying on the description of the three robbers given to him by Moses Molete and Inspector Molamola, he was able to identify the first and second appellants as two of the robbers and arrest them some three weeks after the robbery;

(4)

the evidence of Inspector Molamola that after Moses Molete identified the first and second appellants at the identification parade, he, Molamola, interviewed them again and they gave him information: the first appellant said he had bought his girlfriend a necklace and took the police to his girlfriend where they retrieved the second complainant's necklace; the second appellant said he had taken a watch to a watch repairer and took the police to this person where they retrieved the second complainant's watch; the first and second appellants told Molamola that they had been with the third appellant (by implication on the day of the crime) and on the strength of that information Molamola arrested the third appellant;

2006 JDR 0851 p5

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT