S v Maxaba en Andere
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Jansen AR, Kotzé AR en Viljoen AR |
Judgment Date | 02 December 1980 |
Citation | 1981 (1) SA 1148 (A) |
Hearing Date | 03 November 1980 |
Court | Appellate Division |
Viljoen, AR.:
Die drie appellante het in die Verhoorhof tereggestaan op vier aanklagte, nl:
Roof, met verswarende omstandighede soos vermeld in art 1 van Wet 51 van 1977.
Moord.
Aanranding met die opset om ernstig te beseer.
D Aanranding.
Die bewerings ten aansien van elke aanklag was die volgende:
"Eerste aanklag:
Deurdat die beskuldigdes op of omtrent 2 Oktober 1979 en te of naby E Johannesburg, in die distrik Johannesburg, wederregtelik en opsetlik vir Philemon Maswanganyi, 'n Swartman, aangerand het en met geweld een manspolshorlosie, sy eiendom of in sy regmatige besit, uit sy besit geneem het en hom aldus daarvan beroof het, verswarende omstandighede soos vermeld in art 1 van Wet 51 van 1977 synde aanwesig.
F Tweede aanklag:
Deurdat die beskuldigdes op of omtrent 2 Oktober 1979 en te of naby Johannesburg, in die distrik Johannesburg, wederregtelik en opsetlik vir Philemon Maswanganyi 'n Swartman, gedood het.
Derde aanklag:
G Deurdat op of omtrent 2 Oktober 1979 en te of naby Johannesburg, in die distrik Johannesburg, die beskuldigdes wederregtelik en opsetlik vir Moses Ramogana, 'n Swartman, aangerand het met die opset om hom ernstig te beseer.
Vierde aanklag:
Deurdat op of omtrent 2 Oktober 1979 en te of naby Johannesburg, in die H distrik Johannesburg, die beskuldigdes wederregtelik en opsetlik vir Johannes Molotlhanyi, 'n Swartman, aangerand het."
Al drie die appellante, wat as beskuldigdes tereggestaan het in dieselfde volgorde as dié waarin hulle voor hierdie Hof as appellante verskyn (en na wie ek hierna sal verwys as beskuldigdes 1, 2 en 3), is skuldig bevind soos aangekla op aanklagte 1, 2 en 3 maar, vanweë die swak getuienis van die klaer Johannes Molotlhanyi in die vierde aanklag, is hulle op hierdie laaste aanklag onskuldig bevind. Hulle is soos volg gevonnis:
Viljoen AR
Aanklag 1 |
Roof met verswarende omstandighede |
Beskuldigde 1: |
10 jaar gevangenisstraf. |
Beskuldigde 2: |
Die doodvonnis (diskresionêr gevel). |
Beskuldigde 3: |
Ses jaar gevangenisstraf. |
Aanklug 2 |
Moord |
Beskuldigde 1: |
10 jaar gevangenisstraf (op grond van versagtende omstandighede). |
Beskuldigde 2: |
Die doodvonnis (vanweë geen versagtende omstandighede). |
Beskuldigde 3: |
Ses jaar gevangenisstraf (op grond van versagtende omstandighede). |
Aanklug 3 |
Aanranding met die opset om ernstig to beseer |
Beskuldigde 1: |
Een jaar gevangenisstraf. |
Beskuldigde 2: |
Een jaar gevangenisstraf. |
Beskuldigde 3: |
Een jaar gevangenisstraf. |
Die Verhoorregter het gelas dat die vonnisse opeenvolgend uitgedien moet word en nie samelopend nie.
Met verlof van die Verhoorhof kom beskuldigdes 1 en 3 in hoër beroep teen D hulle skuldigbevindings op aanklag 2, en beskuldigde 2 teen sy vonnis op aanklag 1. Met verlof van hierdie Hof appelleer beskuldigde 2 ook teen sy skuldigbevinding op aanklag 2.
[Die belese Regter het die getuienis ontleed en sekere aspekte van die appèl afgehandel, en soos volg voortgegaan.]
Ek gaan vervolgens daartoe oor om met beskuldigdes 1 en 3 se appèl teen E hulle skuldigbevinding op die tweede aanklag te handel. Die grondslag waarop hulle skuldig bevind is, blyk uit die volgende passasie uit die uitspraak van die Hof a quo waarin die betoog namens beskuldigde 1 en 3 behandel word:
"That argument was to the effect that on Moses' evidence it is clear that, F at the time when No 2 accused stabbed the deceased, the robbery had been completed, because the deceased had handed over his watch and they all three well knew the deceased had no money. According to Mr Levenberg the robbery would then have been completed with the handing over of the watch and therefore the common purpose to rob (which was conceded by counsel) ceased at the moment of the handing over of the watch by the deceased and that therefore the acts of accused No 2 in thereafter needlessly stabbing the deceased was a frolic of his own. The contention was that the common G purpose to rob has to be distinguished from any common purpose to murder, of which there was no evidence. And, proceeded the argument, if common purpose to murder was not proved, then obviously accused Nos 1 and 3 could not be held accountable for accused No 2's action. It was a very attractive argument presented by Mr Levenberg and an equally well prepared argument was very persuasively argued by Mr Du Toit on behalf of the State. In the net result learned counsel's argument has caused a division on this Bench. Mr Du Toit's argument contra Mr Levenberg's argument H (adopted by Mrs Ellison) was to the effect that even accepting that the common purpose to rob deceased when the watch was handed over and the deceased said 'I have no money, don't kill me', it is common cause from the evidence of Moses that No 2 accused produced this knife while the robbery in respect of which there was common purpose was still in progress, because from a summary of Moses' evidence the following appears:
They grabbed the deceased by his throat; they demanded money from him; they surrounded him; they grabbed him by his lapels; they said they wanted money; No 2 accused repeated that they wanted money and while No 2 said this accused Nos 1 and 3 were surrounding the deceased and searching him; No 2 accused held the deceased by the jacket and Nos 1 and 3 accused were busy putting
Viljoen AR
their hands in the pockets of the deceased's clothes; No 2 accused again said 'I want money' and the deceased said 'I have no money'. Clearly the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S v Safatsa and Others
...v Williams en Andere 1980 (1) SA 60 (A) at 63F; S v Hlolloane I 1980 (3) SA 824 (A); S v Felix 1980 (4) SA 604 (A) at 611E; S v Maxaba 1981 (1) SA 1148 (A) at 1156H; S v Sauls 1981 (3) SA 172 (A) at 179G - 180H; S v Lombaard 1981 (3) SA 198 (A) at 199E; S v Witbooi 1982 (1) SA 30 (A) at 33H......
-
S v Mbatha en Andere
...(1) SA 496 (A) at 500D - F; S v Harman 1978 (3) SA 767 (A) at 770E; S v Mafela 1980 (3) SA 825 (A) at 829F - G; S v Maxaba and Others 1981 (1) SA 1148 (A) at 1156B - D; S v Mbele 1981 (2) SA 738 (A) I at 743E - G; S v Sauls and Others 1981 (3) SA 172 (A) at 184B - D and 184H - 185C; S v Kho......
-
S v Nzo and Another
...R v Msele 1955 (2) SA 145 (A); R v Bergstedt 1955 (2) SA 126 (A); S v Williams en 'n Ander 1980 (1) SA 60 (A); S v Maxaba and Others 1981 (1) SA 1148 (A); R v Jackelson 1920 H AD 486; R v Blom 1939 AD 202; R v Parry 1924 AD 401; R v Mlooi and Others 1925 AD 131; R v Von Elling 1945 AD 234; ......
-
S v Mzwempi
...S v Maelangwe 1999 (1) SACR 133 (NC): referred to G S v Majosi and Others 1991 (2) SACR 532 (A): compared S v Maxaba en Andere 1981 (1) SA 1148 (A): referred S v Mbanyaru and Another 2009 (1) SACR 631 (C): referred to S v Mgedezi and Others 1989 (1) SA 687 (A): discussed and applied S v Mol......
-
S v Safatsa and Others
...v Williams en Andere 1980 (1) SA 60 (A) at 63F; S v Hlolloane I 1980 (3) SA 824 (A); S v Felix 1980 (4) SA 604 (A) at 611E; S v Maxaba 1981 (1) SA 1148 (A) at 1156H; S v Sauls 1981 (3) SA 172 (A) at 179G - 180H; S v Lombaard 1981 (3) SA 198 (A) at 199E; S v Witbooi 1982 (1) SA 30 (A) at 33H......
-
S v Mbatha en Andere
...(1) SA 496 (A) at 500D - F; S v Harman 1978 (3) SA 767 (A) at 770E; S v Mafela 1980 (3) SA 825 (A) at 829F - G; S v Maxaba and Others 1981 (1) SA 1148 (A) at 1156B - D; S v Mbele 1981 (2) SA 738 (A) I at 743E - G; S v Sauls and Others 1981 (3) SA 172 (A) at 184B - D and 184H - 185C; S v Kho......
-
S v Nzo and Another
...R v Msele 1955 (2) SA 145 (A); R v Bergstedt 1955 (2) SA 126 (A); S v Williams en 'n Ander 1980 (1) SA 60 (A); S v Maxaba and Others 1981 (1) SA 1148 (A); R v Jackelson 1920 H AD 486; R v Blom 1939 AD 202; R v Parry 1924 AD 401; R v Mlooi and Others 1925 AD 131; R v Von Elling 1945 AD 234; ......
-
S v Mzwempi
...S v Maelangwe 1999 (1) SACR 133 (NC): referred to G S v Majosi and Others 1991 (2) SACR 532 (A): compared S v Maxaba en Andere 1981 (1) SA 1148 (A): referred S v Mbanyaru and Another 2009 (1) SACR 631 (C): referred to S v Mgedezi and Others 1989 (1) SA 687 (A): discussed and applied S v Mol......
-
Comment: Die nuwe statutêre misdaad van deelname aan 'n kriminele bende
...gepleeg het. (Dit is die sogenaamde aksessoriteitsbeginsel by medepligtigheid. Sien hieroor S v Williams supra op 63; S v Maxaba 1981 (1) SA 1148 (A) op 1155; Snyman op cit 271-272; Burchell en Milton op cit 413; MA Rabie Die aksessoriteitsbeginsel in die deelnemingsleer' (1970) 32 THRHR 24......