Shole v The State

The appellants were convicted in the North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng, of housebreaking with intent to rob, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and murder arising from an incident on the night of 3–4 November 2005 at the premises of Ms Manini Elizabeth Smith in Ramatlabama. During the robbery of her tavern and adjoining residence, Ms Smith and her sons were assaulted and one son, Stanley, was fatally assaulted. The first appellant’s conviction was based on evidence from two witnesses who testified that he confessed to involvement in the crimes. The second appellant’s conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, namely his fresh fingerprints on the money box stolen from the pool table and his palm print on the windowsill through which entry to the residence was gained.

The appeal against conviction by both appellants was dismissed.

The case reaffirms South African principles on the evaluation of confession evidence made to lay witnesses, the treatment of single-witness testimony, and the use of fingerprint and palm print evidence as circumstantial proof of guilt. It confirms that fresh fingerprint evidence found in incriminating locations can, in appropriate circumstances, justify an inference of guilt as the only reasonable inference.