IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

In the matter between:

and

[1] The appellant appeared in the Worcester district court on 26 March 2007 facing a charge of assauEt with intent to do grievous bodily harm. It is alleged in the charge sheet that on 6 February 2007 he unlawfully and intentionally assaulted one Hendrika Stacking with a bin with intent to cause her grievous bodily harm. The appellant appeared in person and conducted his own defence. Today the appellant appears in person.

[3] I may mention that the appellant was tate in filing his heads of argument and made an application for condonation. The State does not oppose that application and the application for condonation is granted.

[4] The appellant attacks the conviction on the ground that the State had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had assaulted the complainant with intent to cause her grievous bodily harm. The evidence which had been presented by the complainant and which formed the basis of the appellant's conviction was to the following effect.

[5] On or about 6 February 2007, the appellant and the complainant - who is his ex-wife - had attended a maintenance enquiry at the Worcester Maintenance Court. A heated argument ensued between the appellant and his ex-wife resulting in the appellant picking up a bin and aimed it at his ex-wife. There was a dispute as to whether   the   appellant   had   threw   the   bin   at   the complainant.   According to the appellant he had merely picked it up with an intent to throw it at the complainant but did not do so because his cousin  who was with him at the time remonstrated with him, telling him to stop it. He put the bin down without having carried out his intention.

"Waarom sal die beskuldigde nou terwyl hy kwaad is en terwy! hy is - in sy hart voel en haar aan te rand net die (onduidelik) gryp en (onduidelik)"

"It is a trite principle that in criminal proceedings the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that a mere preponderance of probabilities is not enough. Equally trite is the observation that in view of the standard of proof in a criminal case, a court does not have to be convinced that every detail of an accused's version is true.   If the accused's version is reasonably possibly true in substance, the Court must decide the matter on the acceptance of that version.

[9] In the resuit I would uphold the appeal against both conviction and sentence. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside.