In the matter between:

ROYEN KAROLES 
versus 
THE STATE

MOTAJANE. A J:

The appellant was charged in the Regional Court, Cape Town, with murder. There he pleaded guilty and made a statement in explanation of his plea in terms of Section 112(2) of Act 51 of 1977, in which he set out circumstances which culminated in the death of the deceased.

The statement was rejected by the State and it proceeded to lead evidence of two witnesses and the accused testified in his defence.

The accused was found guilty and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, being the minimum sentence applicable.

The evidence on the merits was straightforward. The record reveals that the appellant and his brothers went to the house of the deceased's brother where there was a party. An argument developed and the appellant left the premises. The deceased followed appellant in the street and at some stage turned and ran back to the yard to set his dogs loose on the appellant. As he was running back to the gate, appellant stabbed him with a knife in the shoulder and he died on the
scene.

On the State version, appellant insulted the deceased who was unarmed. The deceased turned away from the appellant to go and unleash his dogs. The deceased fell and appellant then 20 took out his knife and fatally stabbed the deceased whilst the deceased was on the ground.

The merits of the appeal.    It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that he exceeded the bounds of self-defence in     averting the attack from the deceased and was accordingly negligent   and   should   have   been   convicted   of   culpable homicide.     I do not agree.     Appellant's version is that the deceased ran away after he had dispossessed him of the knife. He chased him and stabbed him once in the shoulder.     He admits that his life was not in danger at the time he stabbed the deceased and that he had legal intention to kill him.   Once these facts are accepted, as they must be, the State has, in my view, succeeded in proving the appellant's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that the magistrate's finding that the contradictions between the State
witnesses with regard to the number of times the appellant attempted to stab the deceased and where he fell was material. On the appellant's version which, for the reasons advanced above is to be preferred, these submissions are irrelevant, as the appellant admits all the elements of the offence of murder.

“Where a trial Court has committed a misdirection the Court of Appeal is free to disregard the findings of fact that have been made by the trial Court and come to its own conclusions, but that in so doing it must be alive to the limitations inherent in the process of appeal.”