S v Motleleni

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Wessels JA, Trollip JA and Galgut AJA
• Judgment Date: 06 November 1975
• Citation: 1976 (1) SA 403 (A)
• Hearing Date: 25 September 1975
• Court: Appellate Division

Galgut, A.J.A.:

The appellant, to whom I will refer as the accused, was found guilty in the Orange Free State Provincial Division, by a Judge and two assessors, of murder with extenuating circumstances. He was sentenced to nine years' C imprisonment. He appeals to this Court, with leave granted under sec. 363(6) of Act 56 of 1955, against the conviction and sentence.

The victim, to whom I will refer as the deceased, died as a result of a stab wound in his chest which penetrated his left lung and the pulmonary artery. He also had a fractured skull, but this injury did not contribute to his death. The stabbing took place, on a Sunday afternoon, in the main room of a house D in the Tweespruit Bantu Township. There is another room in the house. There is, however, only one door giving access to or providing an exit from the house. The evidence indicates further that there is a large window in the house. The situation of the window and door does not appear from the evidence. It would appear that the door opens inwards, E i.e. into the room.

Several witnesses were called for the State. Of these only the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, Makoeme and Motakane, is relevant to the issues in this appeal. They were at the time sitting and drinking and talking to each other in the main room of the house.

[The learned Judge then analysed the evidence and proceeded].

The Court a quo did not accept the accused's evidence that he F had stabbed the deceased, because of his fear, in self-defence. Before discussing its reasons for so doing it is necessary to set out certain extracts from the evidence of the accused.

[The learned Judge then set out such evidence and proceeded].

It follows from what has been said above that the Court a quo's G reasons for rejecting the evidence of the accused cannot be sustained. The evidence of the accused reads well. There is no reason to find that his version of the facts is not the correct one; there is no reason to find that his version of the events is an afterthought.

It follows from the above that the case must be decided on the H facts as given by the accused. A summary of these facts is:

(i)

The accused and deceased fought on the Friday and the deceased drew a knife causing the accused to run away.

(ii)

On Sunday morning the deceased threatened that he would kill the accused and members of his family.

(iii)

On Sunday afternoon the accused went to his grandmother's house and...