South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION

CASE NO: A306/13

DATE: 06 MARCH 2014

In the matter between:

BRYAN LEBOGANG BOPALAMO..............................................................................First Appellant

BONGANI LEONARD THABETHE........................................................................Second Appellant

And

THE STATE............................................................................................................................Respondent

JUDGMENT

WEINER J:

1. The Appellant applies for leave to appeal against the judgment handed down on 6 March 2014 in terms of which this Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against conviction and sentence.

2. The appellants’ main contention is that there are inconsistencies in the state witnesses’ evidence. The Court dealt with this issue in its judgment. The court found that the fact that there were certain inconsistencies did not render all of the evidence against the appellants such that it should not be taken into account. It has been held in many cases that certain discrepancies which have no bearing on other parts of the versions should be expected from witnesses who are not perfect and may forget things after a period of time. See S v Mkohle[1] and Ngobeni v S[2] an unreported judgment of the SCA.

3. The question that has to be answered is whether, at the end of the day, the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. The Court found that the appellants were in possession of certain items and could give no explanation as to the possession of these items which linked them to the crime scene. The police did not know which items were stolen, did not know which weapons were used or that a Mercedes key and jewellery had been stolen. Yet, these are the items that the police found in the possession of the appellants, very shortly after the crime occurred. 

5. The appellants’ attempt to show that the police were acting in a conspiracy against them cannot be accepted.  The evidence, considered in its totality, shows that the state proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. In these premises the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

WEINER J

I Agree:

ANDROPOULOS AJ

APPEARANCES:

For Appellant: J. O. VAN SCHALKWYK

Instructed by BDK ATTORNEYS

For Respondent: S. H SINGH

Instructed by the NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION

Date of Hearing: 20 February 2014

Date of Judgment: 6 March 2014