S v Milisi (CC42/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 150 (27 October 2016)
- Citation
- [2016] ZAECGHC 150
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
- Panel
- C Plasket
- Case number
- CC42/2016
More details
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
- Panel
- C Plasket
- Case number
- CC42/2016
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the complainant's testimony, supported by forensic medical evidence, established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had penetrated her vaginally on three occasions. The accused's confession during cross-examination further corroborated the complainant's account. The evidence did not support penetration per anum, but the essential elements of rape were proved. The accused was found guilty as charged, subject to the qualification regarding the nature of penetration.
Court disposition
The accused is found guilty of rape as charged, subject to the qualification that only vaginal penetration was proved.
Orders
- The accused is convicted of rape.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
Applicant Counsel: Ms HendricksMhlabunzuma Milisi
Defendant Counsel: Mr Solani03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused unlawfully and intentionally committed acts of sexual penetration with the complainant, a 9-year-old girl, without her consent.
- 02
Whether the evidence establishes penetration per vaginam and per anum as alleged in the indictment.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State argued that the complainant, a minor, was subjected to repeated acts of sexual penetration by the accused, as evidenced by her testimony and the forensic nurse's findings of both fresh and older wounds indicative of sexual abuse. The State relied on the complainant's account and the medical evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Respondent
- The accused initially denied the allegations and presented an implausible version of events. However, under cross-examination, he confessed to having raped the complainant on three occasions, corroborating her testimony. No credible defence was maintained.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Zuma 1995 (2) SA 642 (CC)
The State must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings.
- 02
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
A confession made in open court and corroborated by evidence may be accepted as proof of guilt.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the complainant's testimony, supported by forensic medical evidence, established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had penetrated her vaginally on three occasions. The accused's confession during cross-examination further corroborated the complainant's account. The evidence did not support penetration per anum, but the essential elements of rape were proved. The accused was found guilty as charged, subject to the qualification regarding the nature of penetration.
Obiter and limits
- The accused's initial denial and subsequent confession highlight the importance of cross-examination in exposing the truth.
- The medical evidence provided by the forensic nurse was crucial in corroborating the complainant's account and establishing the occurrence of sexual penetration.
Court disposition
The accused is found guilty of rape as charged, subject to the qualification that only vaginal penetration was proved.
- The accused is convicted of rape.
Source and reliance status
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN
Case no.CC 42/2016
Date heard: 26/10/16
Date delivered: 27/10/16
Not reportable
In the matter between:
THE
STATE
and
MHLABUNZUMA
MILISI
JUDGMENT
PLASKET, J:
[1] The accused was charged with the offence of rape. The indictment, to which he pleaded not guilty, stated that ‘between 2014 and 26 January 2015 and at or near Tyoksville, Dordrecht in the district of Dordrecht, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally commit acts of sexual penetration with the complainant, NM, a 9 year old girl, by having sexual intercourse with her on diverse occasions per vaginam and per anum against her will and without her consent’.
[2] The State called four witnesses, including the complainant. The first witness, Sister Buyiswa Ngotyana, a forensic nurse, examined the complainant on 28 January 2015. She found both fresh wounds to the complainant’s genitals and anus, as well as older wounds that were, like the fresh wounds, indicative of her having been subjected to sexual penetration. The complainant testified to having been raped vaginally on three occasions when she had been sent by her grandmother to the accused’s house on errands. On the final occasion, she had reported what had happened to her to a witness who was nearby who called social workers, setting in motion the events that led to the arrest and trial of the accused.
[3] When the accused testified, he initially denied having raped the complainant and instead put up a version that can only be described
as bizarre and clearly mendacious. At the end of his cross-examination, however, he confessed to having raped the complainant on three occasions, as she had testified. He repeated his confession in re-examination.
[4] I am satisfied that the accused’s guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, subject to one qualification: the evidence only establishes that the complainant was penetrated vaginally.
[5] Subject to that qualification, I find the accused guilty as charged.
_______
C Plasket
Judge of the High Court
APPEARANCES:
For the State: Ms Hendricks, office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Grahamstown
For the accused: Mr Solani, Grahamstown Justice Centre
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.