Lekgau v S (A191/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 281 (9 March 2016)

Lekgau v S (A191/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 281 (9 March 2016)

The court found that the fingerprint evidence, together with other circumstantial evidence, placed the appellant at the scenes of the crimes and excluded other reasonable inferences, including the possibility that the fingerprints belonged to Aaron Phasha. The expert evidence that Aaron Phasha and the appellant are the same person was unchallenged and accepted. The appellant's version was not reasonably possibly true, and his failure to challenge the expert evidence or create reasonable doubt was decisive. The court held that the convictions were justified and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 281
Parties
Appellant: Diale Philip Lekgau; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2016
Case Number
A191/15
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Only
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Convictions and sentences confirmed.
Judges
Sikhwari, Ismail
Legal Topics
Fingerprint Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Cross Examination, Similar Facts, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Fingerprint Evidence Circumstantial Evidence Cross Examination Similar Facts Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diale Philip Lekgau

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presence of the appellant's fingerprints at various crime scenes justifies the inference that he participated in the commission of the offences for which he was convicted.
  2. 2 Whether the fingerprints found at the crime scenes are those of the appellant or of another individual, Aaron Phasha.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's version is reasonably possibly true in light of the fingerprint evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the fingerprint evidence, together with other circumstantial evidence, placed the appellant at the scenes of the crimes and excluded other reasonable inferences, including the possibility that the fingerprints belonged to Aaron Phasha. The expert evidence that Aaron Phasha and the appellant are the same person was unchallenged and accepted. The appellant's version was not reasonably possibly true, and his failure to challenge the expert evidence or create reasonable doubt was decisive. The court held that the convictions were justified and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Convictions and sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The convictions and sentences of the court a quo in counts 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are confirmed.