S v Hanuman (593/96) [1997] ZASCA 108; [1998] 1 All SA 254 (A) (27 November 1997)

S v Hanuman (593/96) [1997] ZASCA 108; [1998] 1 All SA 254 (A) (27 November 1997)

The court held that the requirements for remittal of the matter for further evidence, as set out in S v De Jager, were not satisfied. While the appellant met the requirements of explanation and material relevance, the complainant's affidavit did not meet the prima facie likelihood of truth. The affidavit was viewed with suspicion, given the complainant's consistent and credible trial testimony, corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, and the lack of credible evidence aliunde supporting the recantation. The court found no reasonable possibility that the affidavit was true and declined to exercise its discretion to remit the matter. The convictions and sentence were upheld, as...

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 108
Parties
Appellant: Asaram Hanuman; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 1997
Case Number
593/96
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence; Application for Remittal for Further Evidence
Outcome
Both the application for remittal and the appeal against convictions and sentence are dismissed.
Judges
Smalberger, Howie, Zulman
Legal Topics
Rape, Indecent Assault, Recantation of Evidence, Remittal for Further Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Rape Indecent Assault Recantation of Evidence Remittal for Further Evidence Credibility of Witnesses

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asaram Hanuman

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence; Application for Remittal for Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant's affidavit retracting her allegations constitutes sufficient grounds to remit the matter for further evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions and sentence should be set aside in light of the recantation.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court correctly assessed the credibility of the complainant and the evidence presented.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the requirements for remittal of the matter for further evidence, as set out in S v De Jager, were not satisfied. While the appellant met the requirements of explanation and material relevance, the complainant's affidavit did not meet the prima facie likelihood of truth. The affidavit was viewed with suspicion, given the complainant's consistent and credible trial testimony, corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, and the lack of credible evidence aliunde supporting the recantation. The court found no reasonable possibility that the affidavit was true and declined to exercise its discretion to remit the matter. The convictions and sentence were upheld, as...

Court Disposition

Both the application for remittal and the appeal against convictions and sentence are dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for remittal to the trial court to hear further evidence is dismissed.
  • The appeal against convictions and sentence is dismissed.