Rolston Pillay v The State

On 19 May 2017, the appellant, a member of the Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department (EMPD), shot and killed Veli Molala, a 17-year-old male, during a pursuit of alleged robbers. The appellant was engaged in patrol duties when he was informed that a robbery was taking place at Wordsworth School, Farrarmere. He gave chase to two young men running from the school and claims that one of the alleged robbers fired at him. In response, the appellant fired shots, one of which fatally struck the deceased. The appellant pleaded not guilty to murder and submitted a plea explanation claiming he acted in self-defence. The regional court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment. The key evidence against the appellant came from a single eyewitness, Mr Mpilo Kubeka, who testified that he did not see the alleged robbers in possession of a firearm and that the appellant fired first. However, in further evidence admitted under s 309B(5)(a) of the CPA, Mr Kubeka materially contradicted his earlier testimony by stating that he had in fact seen one of the suspects with a firearm tucked in his trousers. He admitted he had been persuaded by a police officer, Ms Motshepe, to fabricate evidence to implicate the appellant.

• Whether the full bench erred in accepting the credibility of a single eyewitness whose evidence contained material contradictions
• Whether the full bench properly applied the cautionary rules applicable to the evidence of a single witness
• Whether the State discharged its onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant did not act in self-defence
• Whether the further evidence admitted under s 309B(5)(a) of the CPA should have affected the assessment of the single witness's credibility
• Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained in light of the contradictory evidence

The appeal was upheld. The order of the full bench in respect of conviction and sentence was set aside. The appellant was found not guilty and discharged.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Where self-defence is pleaded or emanates from the evidence, the onus remains on the State to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted unlawfully and exceeded the bounds of self-defence - the accused has no duty to convince the court of the truthfulness of his version; (2) The evidence of a single witness, even where competent under s 208 of the CPA, must be clear and satisfactory, and where it contains material contradictions, particularly admissions of fabrication, it must be approached with caution and may be insufficient to sustain a conviction; (3) Further evidence admitted under s 309B(5)(a) of the CPA becomes part of the evidence and must be taken into account in determining the appeal - failure to properly consider such evidence that materially affects credibility constitutes a misdirection; (4) Where the defence raised is reasonably possibly true in its essential features, and the State has failed to exclude that reasonable possibility, the accused must be acquitted.

The Court made observations regarding the improper conduct of the investigation, noting with concern: (1) the unusual delay in taking witness statements (several weeks to months after the incident); (2) the questionable practice of having two witnesses together with a police officer present in one room when statements were recorded; (3) the admission by the witness that he had been coached by a police officer to fabricate evidence; (4) the assault of a witness to compel court attendance. While not strictly necessary for the decision, these observations underscore the Court's disapproval of such investigative practices and their potential to undermine the reliability of evidence. The Court also observed that the presence of Ms Motshepe's evidence and Mr Naicker's evidence was "unhelpful to the State's case," suggesting broader concerns about the integrity of the investigation beyond what was necessary to decide the appeal.

This case reaffirms important principles in South African criminal law regarding: (1) the assessment of single witness evidence and the application of cautionary rules, particularly where material contradictions exist; (2) the proper allocation of the onus of proof where an accused raises self-defence - the State retains the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted unlawfully and exceeded the bounds of self-defence; (3) the treatment of further evidence admitted under s 309B(5)(a) of the CPA and its impact on credibility assessments; (4) the limited circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with findings of fact by a trial court. The case demonstrates that where a single witness's evidence is fundamentally flawed by material contradictions and admissions of fabrication, it cannot sustain a conviction even in the absence of corroborating evidence for the defence. It serves as a reminder that courts must carefully scrutinize evidence where there are allegations of witness coaching or manipulation by law enforcement officers.