S v Tshepisho and Others (SS 065/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 451 (5 July 2022)

S v Tshepisho and Others (SS 065/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 451 (5 July 2022)

The court found that the State's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no direct eyewitness testimony linking the accused to the offences. The video footage did not identify the accused as the shooters, and no witness could confirm their involvement. The ballistic evidence was inconclusive and did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 451
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Kekana Tshepisho; Defendant: Motseothata Cidraas Boitumelo; Defendant: Legodi Madimetja Joseph; Defendant: Mohammed Victor Nkosinathi
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 July 2022
Case Number
SS 065/2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Section 174 Discharge Application
Outcome
All accused persons are found not guilty and discharged in respect of all counts.
Judges
M Malangeni
Legal Topics
Section 174 Discharge, Murder, Attempted Murder, Circumstantial Evidence, Ballistics, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Section 174 Discharge Murder Attempted Murder Circumstantial Evidence Ballistics Fair Trial Rights

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Kekana Tshepisho

Defendant

Motseothata Cidraas Boitumelo

Defendant

Legodi Madimetja Joseph

Defendant

Mohammed Victor Nkosinathi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Section 174 Discharge Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is prima facie evidence linking the accused to the murder and attempted murder charges.
  2. 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the State is sufficient to put the accused on their defence.
  3. 3 Whether the video footage and ballistic evidence credibly identify the accused as perpetrators.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the State's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no direct eyewitness testimony linking the accused to the offences. The video footage did not identify the accused as the shooters, and no witness could confirm their involvement. The ballistic evidence was inconclusive and did not specifically implicate the accused's firearms. The crime scene was contaminated, and the chain of custody for key exhibits was not established. The evidence presented failed to exclude reasonable inferences that others could have committed the offences, especially given the presence of multiple police officers and vehicles at the scene. The court held that there was no...

Court Disposition

All accused persons are found not guilty and discharged in respect of all counts.

Orders

  • The application in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is granted.
  • All accused persons are found not guilty and discharged in respect of all counts.