- The court ruled that relying on single witness testimony was unsafe due to major inconsistencies in the complainant’s account.
- Medical and witness evidence did not back up the claim of rape, raising serious doubts about the case.
- The judge found the State did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the man’s immediate release.
The North West High Court in Mahikeng has set aside the rape conviction of a man who had spent years behind bars. Judge President Ronald Hendricks ruled that the case rested almost entirely on single witness testimony, and that this testimony was full of contradictions and gaps.
The man, identified only as PS, was originally convicted by the Potchefstroom Regional Court of rape, kidnapping, and intimidation. His main sentence was 10 years for rape. He appealed to the High Court, arguing that the trial judge failed to treat single witness evidence with the caution it demands.
Judge Hendricks agreed, saying the magistrate “misdirected herself by failing to correctly apply the cautionary rule to the evidence of a single witness.” He pointed out that the complainant’s version of events kept changing and was not supported by other evidence.
Contradictions and missing evidence
A closer look at the case revealed big differences between what the complainant, her mother, and medical professionals said. The mother reported seeing blood on her daughter’s underwear after the alleged incident, but the nurse who examined the complainant found no injuries or blood, just a whitish discharge. Judge Hendricks said this gap could not be written off as a simple mistake.
The court also considered a message allegedly found on the complainant’s cellphone, suggesting she had planned to make a false rape accusation. Judge Hendricks said this cast serious doubt on her honesty and should not have been ignored.
He also questioned why the complainant did not try to escape or call for help, despite having several chances. “If she wanted to escape, she had ample opportunity to do so, yet she did not,” Judge Hendricks said. He found it more likely that the complainant went with the man willingly, which matched his account of what happened.
State fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Judge Hendricks reminded the court that the law puts the burden on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, never on the accused to prove innocence. He said, “His version only needs to be reasonably possible true to be given the benefit of the doubt and to be acquitted.”
He concluded that the State’s case fell short. “The probability that this was indeed a false charge of rape laid against the appellant is strengthened by the improbabilities inherent in her evidence and the contradictory evidence of her mother, which is not borne out by the medical evidence.”
Judge Hendricks also noted it was unlikely that a man trying to repair his marriage would act violently. “It is highly improbable that if the appellant wanted to reconcile with the complainant, he would subject her to such violent and inhumane treatment,” he said.
The court set aside both the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate release of PS unless held for another reason. Acting Deputy Judge President AH Petersen agreed with the decision.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
