S v Seleke
| Jurisdiction | http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa |
| Judge | Reinders J and Daniso J |
| Judgment Date | 29 August 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 JDR 3347 (FB) |
| Hearing Date | 21 August 2023 |
| Docket Number | A64/2023 |
| Court | Free State Division, Bloemfontein |
Reinders J:
On 8 October 2020 the appellant was convicted of two counts of the rapes of minors (contravention of sec 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 32 of 2007, read with the provisions of sec 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 105 of 1997) in the Regional Court sitting in Brandfort. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life on both counts.
The appellant makes use of his automatic right to appeal in accordance with the first proviso of s 309(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and appeals
2023 JDR 3347 p2
Reinders J
both his convictions and sentences. The appellant’s grounds for appeal entails that the court erred in finding that the complainants were credible witnesses, in drawing a negative inference from the appellant’s version by not making a credibility finding in his favour and in finding that the state had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appellant was legally represented throughout the trial and tendered a plea of not guilty. He elected not to proffer a plea-explanation. As the trial progressed however, the appellant’s defence gravitated towards an alibi, in essence that he was not in Brandfort during spring from September to October 2010 (the time and place of the counts of rape of which he stood accused) and could therefore not have committed the crimes. He alleged that he had been falsely implicated by the complainants who were jealous of the fact that he had secured employment in Bloemfontein.
Three witnesses, two of them being the complainants on count 1 and 2 respectively, testified on behalf of the state. Certified copies of the birth certificates of the two complainants were handed in as exhibits and confirmed that the complainant in count 1 (hereafter “Z”) and count 2 (hereafter “K) were respectively 8 and 10 years old when the crimes were committed according to the charge sheets. The cousins were respectively 15 and 17 years old when they testified.
Both Z and K testified that the place where the rapes had occurred to be at the Anglican Church in Brandfort where appellant had sexual intercourse with them on a table top.
The upshot of the evidence tendered by K was that she was on her way from a shop with a girl who resided close to them at the accused’s parental home and with whom she used to play, one Estelle, when the accused met up with them. He had sent Estelle to the shop and requested her (K) to go with him where after the appellant undressed her, covered her mouth, raped her and told her not to tell anyone, giving her some yoghurt as consolation. She refrained from telling anyone at the time as she was still a child, afraid that people would laugh or make fun and her and did not even know at the time that the deed constituted rape.
2023 JDR 3347 p3
Reinders J
She only shared her secret in 2011 with a friend, and in the company of Z. Hereafter she gathered the courage to inform her family of the rape by writing a letter and handing it to her aunt, who testified and confirmed the circumstances of the letter being revealed. K denied that Estelle had left Brandfort at the time of the incidents as Estelle was in grade 1 at the time and she in grade 3, attending the same school.
The evidence of Z entailed that she was playing with Estelle when they were called by the appellant and on his request sent to a shop to buy some items with the instruction to return the items to him at the church. Upon their return appellant sent Estelle away and requested her (Z) to stay behind. Hereafter he undressed and raped her, told her not to cry or mention the incident to anybody, and gave her some cookies. She did not reveal this secret until 2011 when K spoke out in the presence of her (K’s) friend.
The appellant testified and called his elderly mother as a witness. He did not deny having known the complainants or that Estelle used to live with him at his parental home. According to him, however, Estelle had already left Brandfort at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial