S v Komane (A1114/09, 1664, 18/200 (Makweng), A354/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 363 (8 December 2009)

S v Komane (A1114/09, 1664, 18/200 (Makweng), A354/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 363 (8 December 2009)

The court found that the accused was incorrectly charged under section 3 instead of section 2 of Act 71 of 1968, but this was a typographical error that did not result in injustice. The evidence presented by the accused's witness, Mr Komane, provided a reasonable and credible explanation for the possession of the knives, consistent with the accused's version given during his plea explanation and cross-examination. The magistrate's reasons for rejecting the witness's evidence were unfounded. The probabilities did not support the inference that the knives were possessed for unlawful purposes. Accordingly, the accused's version could not be rejected, and he should not have been convicted.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 363
Parties
Respondent: The State; Applicant: LM Komane
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 December 2009
Case Number
A114/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review Judgment
Outcome
Conviction and sentence set aside; accused found not guilty.
Judges
C.P. Rabie, G. Webster
Legal Topics
Possession of Dangerous Weapon, Criminal Procedure Review, Reasonable Explanation, Conviction and Sentence, Evidentiary Weight
Criminal Law Possession of Dangerous Weapon Criminal Procedure Review Reasonable Explanation Conviction and Sentence Evidentiary Weight

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Respondent

LM Komane

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was properly charged under the correct section of Act 71 of 1968.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence presented by the accused and his witness was reasonably possibly true.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction and sentence were justified in light of the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the accused was incorrectly charged under section 3 instead of section 2 of Act 71 of 1968, but this was a typographical error that did not result in injustice. The evidence presented by the accused's witness, Mr Komane, provided a reasonable and credible explanation for the possession of the knives, consistent with the accused's version given during his plea explanation and cross-examination. The magistrate's reasons for rejecting the witness's evidence were unfounded. The probabilities did not support the inference that the knives were possessed for unlawful purposes. Accordingly, the accused's version could not be rejected, and he should not have been convicted.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence set aside; accused found not guilty.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.
  • The accused is found not guilty.