About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZAGPJHC 431
|
|
Bopalamo and Another v S (A306/13) [2014] ZAGPJHC 431 (6 March 2014)
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
:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
[1]
1990
(1) SACR 95
(A) at 98 (E-F)
[2]
(741/13)
[2014 ZASCA59 (2 May 2014)]