The appellants were convicted in the regional court of rape committed in the early hours of 18 November 2006 in Pretoria. The complainant, Ms Pamela Plaatjies, testified that she was accosted by the first appellant, whom she knew, and two other men, one of whom was the second appellant whom she did not know. She was assaulted with stones and a broken bottle and raped by the three men in turn. Neighbours intervened and arrested the appellants at or near the scene. The State relied on the evidence of the complainant, a neighbour (Morris Maluleka), and a medical doctor. The complainant’s evidence contained material contradictions regarding the sequence of events and identification of the perpetrators, which were compounded by contradictions between her evidence, her police statement, and Morris’s testimony. The medical evidence was inconclusive regarding rape. The regional magistrate nevertheless convicted both appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment under s 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997. The North Gauteng High Court dismissed their appeal. Before the Supreme Court of Appeal, the first appellant appealed against sentence only, while the second appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence.
The appeal against the first appellant’s sentence of life imprisonment was dismissed. The appeal by the second appellant against both conviction and sentence was upheld, and his conviction and life sentence were set aside. The Registrar was directed to forward the judgment to the Judge President of the North Gauteng High Court.
The case reaffirms fundamental principles of South African criminal law concerning the burden of proof, the proper evaluation of contradictory evidence, and the caution required in identification evidence, especially where the accused is unknown to witnesses. It underscores that an accused’s version cannot be rejected merely because it is improbable and highlights the duty of courts to give reasons for their decisions. The judgment also confirms the strict application of the minimum sentencing regime for rape under s 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in the absence of substantial and compelling circumstances.