Makhetha v S (A81/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 128 (16 August 2018)

Makhetha v S (A81/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 128 (16 August 2018)

The court found that the only evidence linking the appellant to the offence was the identification by the child complainant, made three weeks after the incident. There were significant contradictions between the testimonies of the child witnesses and inconsistencies regarding the circumstances of the identification. The opportunity for proper observation of the perpetrator was limited, and the identification process was unsatisfactory. The trial court failed to give sufficient weight to these factors, resulting in doubt about the reliability of the identification. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and the conviction and sentence could not be sustained.

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 128
Parties
Appellant: Frans Mongadi Makhetha; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2018
Case Number
A81/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave Granted by Petition
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Naidoo, Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Rape, Identification Evidence, Child Witness, Onus of Proof, Contradictory Testimony
Criminal Law Rape Identification Evidence Child Witness Onus of Proof Contradictory Testimony

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frans Mongadi Makhetha

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave Granted by Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identification evidence of the appellant by the child complainant was reliable beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court properly evaluated the evidence, especially regarding contradictions and reliability.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction and sentence should be upheld in light of the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the only evidence linking the appellant to the offence was the identification by the child complainant, made three weeks after the incident. There were significant contradictions between the testimonies of the child witnesses and inconsistencies regarding the circumstances of the identification. The opportunity for proper observation of the perpetrator was limited, and the identification process was unsatisfactory. The trial court failed to give sufficient weight to these factors, resulting in doubt about the reliability of the identification. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and the conviction and sentence could not be sustained.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal against the conviction and sentence is upheld.
  • The conviction and sentence in this matter are set aside.