The appellant, a 39-year-old teacher, was convicted in the regional court of raping an 11-year-old schoolgirl. The complainant alleged that while passing the appellant’s house after school, she was sent to buy items, watched a video, and was then forced into a bedroom where she was raped. The appellant denied the allegation and provided an alternative version, corroborated by a defence witness (Mr Lethokwe), that the complainant merely watched a video, went to the shop twice, and left before the appellant and Lethokwe were collected by a third party. The defence version placed the events on a Sunday, not a school day. There was no medical or other corroborative evidence of rape, and a later vaginal discharge was not linked to the alleged incident. Despite these conflicts, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
The appeal was upheld; the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were set aside.
This case reinforces core principles of South African criminal law regarding the burden of proof, the dangers of relying on uncorroborated evidence in sexual offence cases without proper scrutiny, and the impermissibility of reasoning that an accused must be guilty because a complainant has no apparent reason to lie. It affirms appellate courts’ powers to reassess facts where trial courts commit material misdirections.