S v Rautenbach
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Vally J |
Judgment Date | 25 March 2013 |
Citation | 2014 (1) SACR 1 (GSJ) |
Docket Number | 164/2012 [2013] ZAGPJHC 104 |
Hearing Date | 19 March 2013 |
Counsel | E Guarneri for the accused, instructed by Legal Aid Board. L Gcaba for the state. |
Court | South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg |
Vally J:
Introduction
[1] In this matter the court was ably assisted by two learned assessors, C Mr Van Wyk and Mr Mokoditwa. The judgment that follows is a unanimous decision of the court.
[2] The accused stands trial on an indictment which charges him with the following five offences:
'Count 1 D
Murder read with s 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997.
Count 2
Robbery with aggravating circumstances as defined in s 1 of Act 51 of 1977 read with s 51 of Act 105 of 1997. E
Count 3
Contravening of s 3 read with s 1, 103, 117, 120(1)(a) and s 121 read with schedule 4 of Act 60 of 2000 — Unlawful possession of a firearm.
Count 4
Contravening of s 90 read with s 1, 103, 117, 120(1)(a) and s 121 read with schedule 4 of Act 60 of 2000 — Unlawful possession of ammunition. F
Count 5
Contravention of s 4(b) read with s 1, 2, 13, 17, 15 and 64 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 (the DDTA) — Unlawful possession of drugs.'
[3] The accused, who at all times was represented by counsel, pleaded G not guilty to the first four counts and guilty to the fifth count. Having satisfied ourselves that the plea of guilty on the fifth count had met all the requirements of a guilty plea, we appropriately convicted the accused on this charge. However, given that he pleaded not guilty on the other four H counts, the trial on those charges commenced, leaving the issue of sentencing on the fifth count to be dealt with after the court had completed its task of determining whether the state had proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of any of those charges.
[4] Apart from claiming that the deceased committed suicide, the I accused chose not to disclose his defence. His approach is countenanced by s 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the CPA). However, at the commencement of the trial, he made certain admissions in terms of s 220 of the CPA. The admissions were recorded in writing. They were:
That the deceased is the person named in the indictment, to wit, Pieter Cornelius Rautenbach. J
Vally J
A That the deceased died on 18 December 2011 as a result of a gunshot wound to the head which he sustained on 18 December 2011 at/near 60 Holt Street, Forest Hill in the district of Johannesburg.
That the body of the deceased sustained no further injuries from the time on which the wounds were inflicted on 18 December 2011 B until a post mortem examination was conducted thereupon.
That Dr. Shakeera Holland conducted a post mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 19 December 2011 and recorded her findings on exh B.
The correctness of the facts and findings of the post mortem examination as recorded on exh B by Dr S Holland.
C That the photographs, sketch plan, and key thereto, exh C, depicts the scene of the crime.'
[5] After the state led all its evidence and closed its case, the accused, now faced with certain incontrovertible evidence, decided to make further admissions. These are:
D The blue and black Adidas takkie collected at the scene (FSG – 668677) was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for DNA analysis.
Blue jean collected from the accused (FSG – 668677) was also forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for DNA analysis.
Both the blue jean and blue and black Adidas takkie contained E blood.
Blood sample was taken from the deceased (PMK 042375/6) by Dr Holland as per exh C. The same was handed to the warrant officer Mdlalose (investigating officer) to be forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
Blood found on both the blue jean and the blue and black Adidas F takkie was compared with the blood sample taken from the deceased.
The result thereof is that the blood found on the blue jean and the blue and black Adidas takkie was that of the deceased.'
[6] Though not spelt out in the admission statements of the accused, it G is common cause that the deceased is his late father. He is, therefore, charged, in terms of counts 1 and 2 of the indictment, with murdering and robbing his father.
[7] The nature of the evidence presented and the manner it unfolded make it necessary to record the substance of each witness's testimony. H However, not all the evidence presented was relevant or had value in establishing the facts material to the issues in the case. Furthermore, while the evidence is recorded here, it bears emphasising that not all of it was admitted. Only the admitted evidence was taken into account in establishing the facts material to the issues.
The state's case
[8] I The state led seven witnesses in support of its case. Most of the evidence revolved around what happened on the night of 18 December 2011, which is when the father of the accused (the deceased) died.
[9] – [40] [These witnesses' evidence has been omitted as not relevant to J the headnote — Eds.]
Vally J
The evidence of Freda Bentley (Bentley) A
[41] At the time the deceased was shot, Bentley was in an intimate relationship with the accused. She is the person referred to as the girlfriend of the accused during the testimony of Macfarlane, Chauke and Msibi. She was in the house at the time the deceased met his death. B Her testimony was that on the night of 16 December or the early hours of 17 December 2011 she went to the Forest Hill Hotel to purchase a drink, where she met the accused. He was driving the deceased's car. The engine of the car was started by joining two pieces of electrical wire that were attached to the ignition. The accused saw her and ordered her to get into the car. At that point she was in a relationship with the C accused, which was on the verge of being ended. The relationship had commenced six months before that. At first she refused to get into the car, but he insisted she do so. She complied with the instructions of the accused and got into the back seat of the car, as the front passenger seat was occupied by one Deon Mundell (Mundell). Also in the back seat was one Arthur (Arthur) who, it was clear to her, was intoxicated and high on D drugs at the time. The accused, too, was intoxicated and high on drugs. Mundell left them. The accused drove the car to the house.
[42] The accused is a regular consumer of drugs and consumes an excessive amount of alcohol. Whenever he consumes drugs, or alcohol, or both, he becomes very aggressive. E
[43] The accused had a lot of motorcar oil on his shirt and body. Bentley put the accused in the bath. In the meantime, Arthur was put onto the bed of the accused, but placed himself under the covers. When the accused came out of the bath he found Arthur sleeping in his bed. He F accused her of having engaged in illicit conduct with Arthur and began slapping her. Arthur was moved onto the couch by the accused and her. Later that morning Arthur recovered somewhat from his stupor and left the house. She and the accused remained there for the whole of that day, as well as the whole of the next day.
[44] During the whole of 17 December 2011 she consumed tranquiliser G tablets, the trade name of which is Brazepam, with whisky. The accused, too, consumed these tablets with whisky. On 18 December 2011, at around 11h30, the deceased arrived at the house and soon after there was a heated argument between him and the accused about the car of the deceased. The argument was so intense that it continued throughout the afternoon. She was instructed by the accused to remain in his room, and H out of the way, so that she would be uninvolved in the argument between them. She complied. She fell asleep. At one point she awoke to go to the bathroom and found that the accused had locked the deceased out of the house. The deceased was trying to get into the house. He had a spade in I his hand. She cannot recall for how long the deceased struggled to get in, but he eventually managed to regain entry. In the meantime, she had returned to the accused's bedroom and passed out as a result of having consumed a number of Brazepam tablets with whisky.
[45] Later that evening the accused woke her up and told her that the deceased had committed suicide. She got up and went to the garage J
Vally J
A where she saw the deceased's body. She told the accused to call the police. They went back into the house where the accused took the telephone, but after a short while put it down and said that he could not make the call, as there was 'no airtime' available. She said to him that they should go to the police station to report the matter. He went back B to the garage. She told him to leave everything until the police arrived, but he came out of the garage with four bullets in his hand. He gave them to her and said she should put them into the car. She put them into the cubby-box next to the front passenger seat and came back. Upon her return she found the accused holding the rifle in his hand, with the front pointed at his chin. He said that he was going to commit suicide, as he C had just lost the only person in the world who cared for him, resulting in him 'being all alone' in this world. She scolded him and took the rifle out of his hand and threw it into the swimming pool, where it was later found by the police.
[46] At this point the accused went into the deceased's room and began D ransacking it. He collected bedding and clothes from the room and started putting them into the car. He instructed her to follow suit. He told her that he intended to sell the bedding and clothes in order to raise money to pay for petrol. They commenced leaving the house. While driving out, they were confronted by a person from the nearby church E who had come to enquire what had happened. The accused informed him that the deceased had committed suicide, and they continued to drive away. She cannot recall if the accused wore any clothes above his waist. The accused drove to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
2014 index
...240S v Radebe 2013 (2) SACR 165 (SCA) ................................................. 459S v Rautenbach 2014 (1) SACR 1 (GSJ) ............................................... 92-4S v Roberts 1999 (4) SA 915 (SCA) ..................................................... 49, 84S v Robiyana 2009......
-
2014 index
...240S v Radebe 2013 (2) SACR 165 (SCA) ................................................. 459S v Rautenbach 2014 (1) SACR 1 (GSJ) ............................................... 92-4S v Roberts 1999 (4) SA 915 (SCA) ..................................................... 49, 84S v Robiyana 2009......