Abel Sekoala v The State

The appellant, Abel Sekoala, and a co-accused were charged with 11 counts of rape under s 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007. The complainant was the appellant’s former intimate partner. She alleged that after arriving at the appellant’s home, she was forcibly raped multiple times by the appellant and his friend over the course of the night. The State relied primarily on the complainant’s evidence as a single witness, supported by a first report witness and a J88 medical report noting bruising. The appellant denied rape and contended that the sexual intercourse was consensual, providing a detailed alternative version supported in material respects by the co-accused. The trial court convicted both accused, and the High Court dismissed their appeal and increased sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The convictions and sentences imposed on the appellant were set aside. The appellant was found not guilty on all 11 counts of rape.

This judgment reinforces fundamental principles governing the evaluation of evidence in criminal trials, particularly in rape cases. It confirms that even in serious sexual offence matters, courts must rigorously apply the cautionary approach to single-witness evidence, properly assess inconsistencies, and fairly consider the accused’s version. The case underscores that convictions cannot stand where the accused’s version is reasonably possibly true and the State has not proved absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt.