On 20 April 2019, during a graduation party at the deceased's family home in Vosloorus, the appellant created a disturbance by banging on a table while the deceased's grandmother, Poppy Dludla, was attempting to address the gathering. Ms Dludla was carrying the deceased, a 5-month-old infant named Jayden Genyo Motshalefa, on her back using a towel, with the child's head covered with a blanket due to rain. As Ms Dludla walked past tables to put the child to bed, co-accused Jamieson Koos Phiri (accused 2) pushed her, causing her to slip and fall backwards onto the ground (which was covered by a carpet on grass). The deceased was still on her back during the fall. When Ms Dludla stood up, the deceased was bleeding from the nose and mouth. The child was taken to a clinic and then hospital, but died that evening from blunt force head injuries including extensive scalp bruising, subgaleal haemorrhage, bilateral subarachnoid haemorrhage, and brain swelling. The appellant was charged along with accused 2 with the unlawful killing of the infant. The State alleged the appellant acted in common purpose with accused 2 and kicked the deceased after the fall. The appellant was highly intoxicated at the time. Accused 2 died on 5 November 2023 before the appeal was finalized.
The appeal was upheld. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant were set aside and she was acquitted of the charges.
For a conviction based on common purpose, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused shared the common intention with co-accused and actively participated in the criminal conduct. Where evidence shows reasonable doubt as to whether the accused committed the alleged acts (actus reus) and whether the accused had the requisite intention (mens rea) - either direct or indirect - to bring about the prohibited result, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. In circumstances involving rapid events, limited observation opportunities, intoxication, and crowded conditions, courts must carefully scrutinize whether the State has discharged its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If the accused's version of events cannot be safely rejected and creates a reasonable possibility inconsistent with guilt, an acquittal must follow.
The court observed that the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased were consistent with the impact resulting from the grandmother falling backwards onto the child she was carrying on her back, and that it is a reasonable possibility that the fatal injuries were sustained by the fall alone. The court noted that while the grandmother testified she tried to break her fall by extending her arms backwards, the probabilities are that in those circumstances it would have been difficult to control her descent onto the ground, and the young infant was very vulnerable to any crushing force arising from the fall. The court also commented that the rain in all probability would have made the carpet slippery underfoot, contributing to the fall.
This case demonstrates the application of criminal law principles regarding common purpose and the standard of proof required in criminal matters. It illustrates that in order to convict on the basis of common purpose, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused shared the common intention and actively associated themselves with the criminal conduct. The case also highlights the importance of courts carefully evaluating evidence in chaotic circumstances where observations may be limited, intoxication is present, and events unfold rapidly. It reinforces that where there is a reasonable doubt about crucial elements of the alleged crime, including whether the accused committed the actus reus and had the requisite mens rea, an acquittal must follow. The case also demonstrates proper application of the principle that an accused's version need not be believed, but if it is reasonably possibly true or creates reasonable doubt, an acquittal must result.