Ramohapi and Another v S (A115/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 62 (31 March 2016)

Ramohapi and Another v S (A115/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 62 (31 March 2016)

The court found that there was no direct evidence identifying which police officer fired the fatal shot. The ballistic evidence did not link the bullet head found in the deceased's body to the appellants' firearms, and several other police officers also fired shots at the scene. The mere presence of spent cartridges from the appellants' firearms was insufficient to establish common purpose or direct involvement in the killing. The investigation was inadequate, as not all cartridges were analysed. Applying the test for circumstantial evidence, the court held that the inference of guilt was not the only reasonable inference from the facts. Consequently, the convictions could not stand.

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 62
Parties
Appellant: Malefetsane Paulus Ramohapi; Appellant: Khotso Elias Kheu; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2016
Case Number
A115/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions set aside and appellants acquitted.
Judges
Moloi, Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Murder, Circumstantial Evidence, Common Purpose, Ballistic Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Circumstantial Evidence Common Purpose Ballistic Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malefetsane Paulus Ramohapi

Appellant

Khotso Elias Kheu

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' convictions for murder were supported by sufficient evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence established common purpose or direct involvement in the shooting of the deceased.
  3. 3 Whether the ballistic evidence linked the appellants' firearms to the fatal bullet.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no direct evidence identifying which police officer fired the fatal shot. The ballistic evidence did not link the bullet head found in the deceased's body to the appellants' firearms, and several other police officers also fired shots at the scene. The mere presence of spent cartridges from the appellants' firearms was insufficient to establish common purpose or direct involvement in the killing. The investigation was inadequate, as not all cartridges were analysed. Applying the test for circumstantial evidence, the court held that the inference of guilt was not the only reasonable inference from the facts. Consequently, the convictions could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions set aside and appellants acquitted.

Orders

  • The appeal against the convictions succeeds.
  • Both appellants are acquitted.