S v Maruma (CC5/24) [2025] ZAGPPHC 312 (24 March 2025)

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy










IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

Case No. CC5/24
(1) Reportable: No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: No
(3) Revised.
Date : 24 March 2025
Signature

In the matter between :

STATE

and

DOCTOR NKURUBE MARUMA ACCUSED

Date heard : 28-October 2024 - 24 March 2025
Date judgment delivered : 24 March 2025

JUDGMENT
Munzhelele J

Introduction

[1] South Africa is facing a gender -based violence (GBV) crisis that threatens
the safety, dignity, and future of its people. The country has been labeled the rape
capital of the world , with 42,780 rape cases and 53,498 sexual offences reported
between April 2022 and March 2023 , during the occurrences of all these off ences .
These are not just numbers —they represent real people, real victims, and real
suffering s. O ne of the complainant s could not finish her evidence , due to the
excessive trauma she had encountered . She has been collapsing every time she
tried to proceed with her evidence , until she decided that, she does not want to
proceed with testifying anymore. This is the real trauma of a person who has been
traumatized by the ordeal that happened to her, which continues to unfold right
before our eyes.

[2] Despite having a Constitution that upholds human rights and being a
signatory to international and African human rights treaties , the scourge of rape,
femicide, and domestic violence , continues to rise . This violence is not just an attack
on individuals; it is an attack on our families, our communities, and our nation’s
future. Coming back to this case at hand , a nu mber of women and children were
terrorized at their own homes, during the night , in the Ma nkweng area , Limpopo
Province and Pretoria West , Gauteng Province. T his situation demands a deliberate
and urgent effort to end this act of war on women and children.

[3] In this case , the accused has been charged with 46 counts , which are 23
counts of the contraventi on of section 3 of A ct 32 of 2007(rape) , which are 1,3,5, 6,8,
10,11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36,40,42,44, and 46.
13 c ounts of housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery with aggravating
circumstances which are 2,9,12,14, 16,18, 20, 23, 25, 31, 33, 41, and 45;
2 counts of housebreaking with intent to rape which are count 4, and 7 ;
2 counts of housebreaking with intent to st eal and theft which are count 38, and 43;
2 counts of contravention of section 55 of act 32 of 2007 (attempted rape) which are
count 10, and 22;
3 counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances which are count 30, 37, and 39;
and;
1 count of theft which is count 35 ;

[4] The joinder of cases from the Mankweng jurisdiction with Pretoria cases , was
authorized by Rodney James De Kock, a Deputy National Director of Public
Prosecutions, so that they could be joined with the cases from Pretoria West,
Gauteng, to be dealt with by the High Court of Pretoria. See Exhibit ‘A’. The charges
were put to the accused and he understood them. The accused was informed by his
legal counsel , of the applicable minimum sentences relevant to the charges against
him during consultation . In respect of the 23 counts of rape, the State invoked the
provisions of section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
Regarding the 16 counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances, the State
invoked the provisions of section 51(2) of the same Act. The competent verdicts
were also explained to the accused, who confi rmed his understanding thereof.

[5] After the charges were read, the accused confirmed his understanding thereof
and pleaded not guilty, denying any invo lvement in the commission of the alleged
offences. The accused admitted the chain of custody concerning the buccal samples
taken from him, as well as the swabs collected from all the complainants. He
acknowledged that there was no tampering with the forens ic kits sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory and that, while in the possession of forensic personnel, the kits
were securely stored and remained intact.
The forensic DNA results were admitted into evidence by consent, with both the
accused and his legal representative confirming the accuracy of their contents. The
admissions were duly confirmed by the accused and formally recorded in terms of
section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The identification parade,
which was held on February 28, 2 023, at the Pretoria West Atteridgeville Police
Station by Sergeant Mafa, where the accused was identified as the culprit by M[...]
Mashitoa and H[...] L[...] in a line -up of eight people, as reflected in the photograph
taken by Constable Patrick Ntsoane . Exhibit VV1 -2 and WW1 -2, was also admitted
and handed in , with the consent of the defence. The defence also admitted that , the
procedure followed, as recorde d on SAPS 329 Exhibits VV3 and WW3, was correct.

[6] The state called the following fingerprints expert s: Warrant Officer DD Cloete,
who handed in the finger prints on exhibit E , F, G, H found from a bottle at the 340
Rosetta Street Pretoria West, where th e complain ant is Nolwazi N[...] count 29 -30.
The finger print uplifted , was a left ring finger. Again, the Warrant O fficer testified
regarding exhibit I, J, K, where the complainant is T[...] M[...] on count 33 -35. The
finger print uplifted, is the left thumb print , found on the sliding doorframe. All these
finger prints, matched the finger prints of the accused.

[7] Finger print expert Warrant O fficer Mkhari , testified in relation to exhibit L, M ,
N, O on count 43 of the c omplain ant Justice Nungu , where a right palm print was
found at the bathroom window tile inside the house. This right palm print belongs to
the accused.

[8] The fingerprint expert Warrant Officer F.J Joubert , testified about the
fingerprint which was uplifted by Warrant Officer Mochekgec hekge on the bugler ,
outside the sitting room on exhibit RR, SS, TT, UU of accused’s left palm print.

[9] The state also called the following witnesses:

1. M[...] M[...] L[...] (Count 1): who was staying with her husband and kids at Ga –
Thoka, Ga Manyane , a village in Limpopo P rovince. She testified that , on the 1st
October 2017, she was chilling with her family and neighbours, drinking alcohol. At
around 02h00 am she felt her tummy ache and went to the toilet which is outside the
house. As she was in the toilet, she saw a shade from outside. The door of the toilet
was unexpectedly opened when she saw a man with a knife. He pointed the knife
towards her and instructed her to quickly stand up b efore he stabs her. She then
stood up with her trousers still below her knees and the man pulled her out of the
toilet to the back of the house and instructed her to bend over , and inserted his penis
from her behind into her vagina and penetrated her. He t hen dressed up and then
ran away. After he ran off, M[...] shouted out for help and ran to the house and
informed her husband that she got raped outside. Her husband phoned the police.
She opened a case and was then transported to Mankweng hospital where sh e
received medical attention. The witness was able to ident ify the perpetrator and
confirmed that it was not the first time she saw the accused. That she knows the
accused from the taxi rank as he usually acted as a queue marshall. The DNA result
from the complainant ’s vaginal swab matched the DNA results from the accused as
per exhibit NN.

2. S[...] C[...] D[...] (Count 2 -3): testified that on the 08 February 2021 , at around
12h00 midnight and while sleeping at her place of residence, a male person broke
into her room and threatened to kill her. The male person told her that he wanted to
rape her. He held her against her w ill, while pointing a knife to her neck. He pushed
her onto her bed, so she could lay on her back and while facing up, he forcefully
removed her panties and undressed his trouser. The accused then forcefully inserted
his penis into her vagina, and penetrated her. The accused further seized a 32- inch
T.V, Fusion speaker, a phone and a R200 note. The witness was unable to identify
the perpetrator. However, the DNA results of the accus ed, matched the DNA results
from the vestibular swab of the complainant. See exhibit OO.

3. M[...] B[...] M[...] (Count 4 –5 F[...] ’s friend) : could not finish her evidence –
she testified that on the 23rd of March 2018, while she was sleeping with F[...], her
brother and brother’s girlfriend, she felt F[...] shaking her and she opened her eyes.
Just below the door she thought she saw a person’s knees but nevertheless
continued to sleep. A few minutes later , she realised that an intruder had broken into
their house and was standing by their heads. She then moved away from the
blankets and shouted her brother’s name T[...]; then she woke up F[...] and M[...] .
She informed T[...] that there was a stranger in the house. The man then ran towards
the door an d instructed T[...] to tell his sister to keep quiet, otherwise , he would kill
one of them if she kept on screaming. These w itness could not finish testifying as
she had fainted and was taken by an ambulance. However, t he DNA results of the
accused matched the DNA results from the complainant as per exhibit NN .

4. F[...] T[...] L[...] (Count 4 and 6 ) – resided at Ga Thoka , in Limpopo Province.
She testified that on 23 March 2018 , she went to sleep at her f riend M[...] ’s home, in
a shack. I t was the four of them. Her, M[...] , M[...] and T[...]. In the early morning
around 04h00 am , She heard footsteps from outside the shack . In a few minutes ,
she heard M[...] scream and calling out T[...]’s name. When she opened her eyes,
she realised that , the house was broken into, by an intruder who was standing at the
side of their heads. The curtain dividing the be d side from the kitchen fell off, and the
man instructed T[...] to hang it. He then told M[...] to come to the kitchen side,
switched off the light, then later came and instructed her (B[...]), to come to the
kitchen side. He instructed her to undress and she refused. Then he made her feel a
gun on his waist and told her that he would kill her if she did not do as instructed.
She then undressed both her trouser and panty, then the man str etched her legs
apart, lowered his trouser up to his thighs and insert ed his penis in to her vagina,
then penetrated her. After penetrating her, he told her to go back to sleep and told
them to lock the door just before he exited. After the ordeal, she could not fall asleep.
When it dawned outside, they then reported the inci dent to their neighbour, who
called the police. The police van arrived and they transported her and M[...] to the
police station for a statement , then to the Mankweng hospital where they received
medical attention. The witness was unable to identify the accu sed. The DNA results
of the accused however, matched the DNA from the Vagina S wab of the
complainant. See exhibit NN.

5. M[...] J[...] R[...] (count 7&8) and 16 years old – resided at stand no. 9[...] at Ga
Thoka. She testified that on 04 April 2018 at around 20h30 pm , she went to sleep
and was later joined by her little brothers. At around 03h00 am and as she was
sleeping, she sensed a shadow in the room. She took off her blanket and realised
that the room was broken into, by an intruder, as she saw a person standing, with his
face covered, managing to see only the eyes. This person raised a weapon, a mini
slasher and put it on her throat . He told her not to make a noise or he would cut her
throat and order his friends to come through and kill her. He then start ed searching
around and demanding money. She told him she did not have it and he further
searched and found her mother’s purse but found no money. He then instructed her
to remove her blanket and to undress. She refused, and he threa tened her with a
panga. With fear, she gave in and undressed her skirt and panty. The man removed
a condom out of his pocket, undressed and stretched her legs wide open and
inserted his penis into her vagina and penetrated her. After a while , he got off and
removed the condom , then instructed her to look away and not at him. He then left
through the back window with a broken pane. She covered herself with the blanket
for a while until such tim e that it dawned outside,ensuring that the man had left. Then
she proceeded to her mother’s room crying , and narrated to her mom what had
happened. Her mother phoned the Mankweng police station. On arrival of the police,
they inspected the room in which she was raped. The police then took her to the
police statio n for a statement and then transported her to Mankweng hospital , where
she was given medical attention and counselling. The witness testified further that
she was 16 years o ld when this ordeal happened, which affected her studies and
resulting in her failing two terms consecutively and feeling alone. She suffered
nightmares and shame. The witness was unable to identify the accused. However,
the DNA results from the complainant’s vaginal swab, matched the DNA results from
the accused as per exhibit NN.

6. B[...] D[...] M[...] (Counts 9 & 10) : testified that , she resided in Turfloop , Ga-
Makanye, in a backroom, which she shared with her friend, R[...] B[...] M[...] . On 3
October 2018, while she and her roommate were asleep, she was awakened by the
sound of voices inside the room. Her roommate shook her in an attempt to wake her.
Upon waking up, she saw a man speaking to her roommate about sneakers. The
room light was on, and the intruder had broken into the room.
The intruder asked , whose laptop was that, on the table, and she responded that it
was hers. He then stated that he was taking it. He further demanded money , but
both did not have any. The in truder, however, insisted that U niversit y students must
have money, as U niversities provide financial allowances. He became agitated,
pointed a knife at them, and intimidated her roommate into retrieving money from her
purse. Under duress, her roommate took out R600 and handed it to him.
The suspect then instructed them to return to bed and stated that he needed
condoms. When they informed him that they did not have any, he ordered them to
undress, and they complied. Howev er, B[...] was menstruating and had a sanitary
pad on her underwear. Her roommate told her to allow the intruder to start with her
instead. The intruder then unzipped and lowered his trousers to his thighs, pulled the
roommate to the edge of the bed, and instructed her to bend over. B[...] witnessed as
he inserted his penis into her roommate’s vagina and penetrated her.
After some time, the intruder instructed B[...] to cover herself with a blanket. He later
removed the blanket and told her it was her tu rn. As her roommate dressed up, he
ordered B[...] to come closer and instructed the roommate to cover herself. He then
made B[...] sit at the corner of the bed and began touching her breasts and thighs.
Whispering into her ear, he stated that , he would n ot rape her because she was
menstruating, as he did not want to "get sick" or "infected." He shook the bed and
remarked that he did not want the roommate to be the only one feeling the pain of
being raped.
Shortly after, he instructed B[...] to get back u nder the blanket. She dressed up, and
the intruder did the same. While they were getting dressed, there was a knock at the
door, and male voices were heard urging and instructing him to finish up as they
were "done." The intruder then left, taking B[...]’s laptop and laptop charger with him.
Approximately five minutes later, B[...] took her phone, as her roommate was crying,
and called the other tenants in the building. They arrived, and she narrated the
incident to them. The tenants then contacted the po lice, who arrived and obtained
statements, and forensic personnel collected fingerprints. B[...]’s roommate was later
transported to Mankweng Hospital by the police.
This incident severely affected B[...], as it occurred during the examination period.
Both she and her roommate , had to leave and return home. They subsequently had
to travel from home to the U niversity to write exams before eventually relocating
permanently. Due to the trauma, B[...] transferred institutions and is no longer
enrolled at the University of Limpopo but is now studying at the University of Venda.
The witness was able to identify the perpetrator .

Count 11 , she B[...] R[...] is in South Korea and could not attend court.

7. M[...] S[...] J[...] (Counts 12 & 13) : who was 15 years old at the time, testified
that, she resided at Mangweni Unit […], Stand 1 […], with her mother and siblings.
On 8 October 2018, she was asleep on the floor of the dining room with her siblings
and mother. This arrangement was made because her mother was ill, and they did
not want her to be alone. Her mother woke her up and instructed her to remain quiet,
as there was a stranger in the house. The house was broken into by an intruder.
Upon waking up, J[...] saw a man holding a household knife. The intruder told her
mother to cover herself with a blanket and to stay quiet, threatening to kill her if she
did not comply. The man then took J[...] to her mother's room, where he pushed her
onto her mother's bed, removed her underwear, and lowered his trousers. He lifted
her legs and inserted his penis into her vagina, pe netrating her. Throughout the act,
the stranger held the knife against her neck. J[...] cried, and as she did, she heard
her mother shouting for help outside. The intruder then climbed onto the bed and
exited the house through the window. J[...] immediat ely got off the bed and ran to a
neighbour’s house, who then took her to Mankweng Police Station. The P olice
recorded her mother’s statement, as she , J[...] was unable to speak. J[...] was later
taken to Mankweng Hospital, where she received medical atte ntion and counselling .
Her mother, who was already in poor health, suffered a stroke following the ordeal
and died. The traumatic event has had a severe impact on J[...], and she has
repeatedly failed in school since the incident. The witness could not id entify the
perpetrator. However, the DNA results , confirmed that the DNA of the accused ,
matched the DNA found on the swabs taken from the complainant. (See Exhibit NN ).

8. D[...] N[...] P[...] (count 12&13 a witness): is the neighbour of M[...] S[...] J[...].
She testi fied that at around 05h30 am , she was asleep , when she heard the
community shouting for help. She went out and heard the voice of the victim’s
mother shouting for help. She went to the mother and found some of the community
members already gathered in her yard. The victim was crying and also bleeding on
her thighs. She asked her what had happened , and the victim narrated the whole
ordeal to her. She then phoned the Man kweng Police , who came and took the victim
and her mother. The vic tim suffered from depression and the mother frequently
complained about what had happened to her child.

9. Jack Ngobeni (Warrant Officer and investigating officer): has 22 y ears’
experience in the employ of the SAPS , currently stationed at Braamfontein in the
Sexual Offence Unit. He testified that , on or around August 202 4, he could not
subpoena B[...] R[...] , a complainant , as he found that she had moved out of the
country. He however , managed to make a means and c ommunicate with her via a
WhatsApp number, and she confirmed that she had moved to South Korea, further
indicating that she was going to be in South Korea for a while and would only return
to South Africa in August 2025. He further testified that, his atte mpt to subpoena also
N[...] M[...] M[...] , failed as it was confirmed by her mother that she had passed on.

10. Mosebe Constance Ngoasheng (count 14,15 - hearsay evidence which was
admitted about the decea sed N[...] M[...] who was raped ): testified that she is a
Constable at Mankweng SAPS with three years of service. In the year 2018 she was
at work , when a female person came in at the station and reques ted assistance with
a rape matter. She then stood up from the desk she was stationed at, went with her
to a separate room for privacy. She introduced herself to the victim and asked her to
narrate to her what had happened. After her narration, she opened a case . The
statement of the d eceased was handed in as Exhibit QQ. The DNA results of the
accused matched the DNA found from the swabs taken from the deceased at the
time when she was still alive. See exhibit NN.

T[...] J[...] never testified in court. she was traced and never found, r egarding
count 16 and 17 .

11. P[...] H[...] (count 18 and 19) : testified that , on the morning of the 28 July 2019 ,
her house was broken into by an unknown male per son who was in possession of a
knife. She was able to see that knife because the suspect had switched on the torch
on his cell phone. The suspect demanded to have a sexual intercourse with her or
otherwise if she refuse d, that he was going to kill her. She complied and the suspect
without consent , had sexual intercourse with her and ejaculated on her. After the
sexual intercourse, he stole a phuma back pa ck, a Samsung cell phone, a cash
amount of R150 -00 and pairs of sneakers which belonged to the complainant. The
DNA of the accused mat ched the DNA found on the vestibule swab from the
complainant. See exhibit NN .

12. F[...] P[...] N[...] – (count 20 -21-22): testified that she resided in Nellmap hius Ext
2[…] with her two sisters and two children. On 10 October 2019 at around 04h00 am,
and while she was asleep, she opened her eyes and realised that there was a
stranger who broke open and entered into the shack . The stranger was bending
down and putting her sister’s laptop in the bag. She asked the stranger what he was
doing in th eir house. He stood up and headed straight to the bed where they were
sleepin g. He pointed a knife towards her . He then placed the knife on the 9 months’
baby’s chest and told he r that if she does not do as per his instructions, he will stab
the child’s chest through to her back. S he then sat on the bed. He asked where they
usually put their bags and she pointed him to where the bags were placed. He then
instructed her to take out the purses from the bags and to remove all the money
which was inside. He ordered her to tell her sister and the 12 -year-old child to cover
themselves with the blanket and sleep, if not, he would stab the 9 -month old child.
She then removed the money from both purses in the amount of R380 and gave it to
him and he placed it in his pocket. He instructed her to go outside. He pointed the
knife towards her waist and pushed her out the shack to the toilet outside. In the
toilet, he i nstructed her to undress and put her hands on the toilet. He tried to insert
his penis into her vagina but failed to completely penetrate but he touched the
complainant’s vagina , as he was failing. F then asked him to go and get a condom
from the house. Her request was with the hope that she would manage to go and
convince the sister in the house to call out for help. When she got to the shack, her
sister and child were still underneath the blanket. She tried to sta ll for time as she
looked for a condom she knew did not exist in the shack. The man began to call out
for her aggressively telling her that she was wasting his time. She then went outside
and he aggressively put a knife against her waist, this time hurting her. There was a
mat outside the door which he grabbed and instructed her to lie on the mat. He
undressed his trouser and inserted his penis in her vagina and penetrated her. Once
he was done, he released his sperms onto the mat which she laid on. As he w as
dressing, her sister who was sleeping in the next shack came out with a spade as
well as the neighbours, however, the man fled. The neighbours scattered in search
of him but could not find him. The n she went to the Mamelodi Police station to repo rt
the incident. The police recorded her statement and then took her to Mamelodi
Hospital where she received medical attention . The DNA results from the forensic
laboratory confirmed t hat the semen found on the carpet where the sexual
penetration occurred , is tha t of the accused.

13. N[...] M[...] (count 23 -24) testified that , the accused whom she recognised and
who was in the dock was the one who broke and entered her room on the 23
October 2019 , while at Pretoria W est. He recognised the accused through his big
eyes, because she managed to look at his eyes when the accused was talk ing to
her. The accused rape d her first while she was lying on her back and proceeded to
penetrate her while she was on lying on her belly. She reported the case to the
police and the LCRC took finger prints on the window . Forensic evidence regarding
the D NA, was found and matched that of the accused. Finger print of the accused
was found on the window. On the date of the house breaking, the accused robbed
the complainant’s Nokia cell phone valued at R300 and the sneakers valued at R600
while threateni ng th e complainant with a knife, t elling her that if she does not give
her the items she would be killed. The same applies to the rape , she was threatened
to be killed with a knife if she did not submit to sexual intercourse. The accused’s
DNA was found matchin g the DNA found on the gown of the complainant.

14. C[...] P[...] – (counts 25 & 26), testified that she stayed in a room with two
friends L[...] D[...] & H[...] M[...] . On 21 November 2019, they were in the house
asleep. At around 01h00AM , she opened her eyes and saw a male person standing
beside her and searching her pillow. The intruder broke and entered into the room
where she was asleep with her friends. The man instructed her and her friends who
had also woken up not to shout and he poi nted a knife at them and threatened to
stab them should they shout. The male person moved towards L[...] and instructed
her to give him her cell phone. L[...] gave him her phone and she as well gave him
her phone. The male person then instructed her to undress also threatening her with
the knife he had in his hand. The male person had initially asked to have sexual
intercourse with her but she refused . He used force and took her to H[...] ’s bed
forcefully and threw her on the bed , took out a condom from his poc ket and inserted
onto his penis then inserted his penis into her vagina forcefully. Once he was done
penetrating her, she grabbed her by her hand , and threw her onto the other bed,
then covered her and H[...] with a blanket and grabbed L[...] to the same bed , where
she was penetrated. After a short while, she brought L[...] back and grabbed H[...]
and covered them once more with a blanket. After he was done with H[...] , he left.
Then they cried and screamed for help. The other tenants responded and called the
Landlord who contacted the police. The police came and took them to the Pretoria
West Police Station and took their statement then took them to a local hospital for
medical attention. After the whole ordeal, a Plasma TV, three cell phones and R800
from L[...]’s purse we re taken . The witness was able to identify the perpetratror.

15. L[...] I[...] D[...] (count 25 and 27) testified that she was asleep , when woke up
seeing a man who was in their room holding a firearm on one hand and on the other
was holding a knife. S he was the first one to see this man inside the room. She
confirmed what C[...] said about the rape ordeal and the robbery of her money. She
identified the intruder as the accused who had a gold tooth. Even in court , the
accused was still having the gold tooth. She saw it again when he was laughing in
court.

16. H[...] A[...] M[...] (Counts 25 and 28) , resided at 3 [...] K[...] Street, Pretoria West,
with P[...] C[...] and L[...] D[...] . She confirmed the statements made by C[...] and
D[...] , regarding the rape and robbery. Following the ordeal, she stopped working
because she felt that people were talking about her, and her husba nd left her as a
result of the incident. Within the same month, they moved out of their residence.

The witness was able to identify the perpetrator. For all three comp lainants —P[...]
C[...] , L[...] I[...] D[...] , and H[...] A[...] M[...] —swabs were taken, and the DNA found
on their panties , matched the DNA of the accused .

17. N[...] N[...] (count 29 -30) – testified that on 10 July 2020, she woke up around
5h00 am to go open the gate so her roommate could gain access upon her arrival
back from the village, where she was at the time. She proceeded to go to the toilet
which was outside her room. While she was inside the toilet, she felt a gun pointed at
her head and a male instructing her to keep quiet. The male person forcefully
grabbed her and pulled her hand, for cing her to exit the toilet and pushed her so she
could walk ahead of him. She headed to her room with that male person behind her .
She opened her room , and the male entered in as well. The male locked the door
and instructed her to sit on the bed. He furt her instructed her to stand up and
undress. After undressing, the male reached for a knife that was kept in the room
and instructed her to face the opposite direction and kneel on her bed. The male
undressed his trouser and from her back, forcefully insert ed his penis into her vagina
and penetrated her. Once he was done, the man stole her bag, laptop, and phone.
Before leaving, he told her he wasn’t afraid of the police as he used strong traditional
medicine. The woman, upset and crying, went outside to che ck if her roommate had
arrived. When her roommate and her boyfriend showed up, she told them what
happened. They took her to the Pretoria West Police station, where she gave a
statement. The police then took her to Laudium clinic for medical tests and
sche duled counselling. Fingerprints were also collected at her home from a glass
bottle which was standing on top of the fridge in the room. The left ring finger was
uplifted. And it was found that accused’s finger was similar to the finger uplifted from
the complainant’s room. Exhibit E, F, G, H, were handed in as proof of evidence and
comparison by Warrant O fficer Dawid Daniel Cloete , of the LCRC Pretoria. Also, the
DNA result of the accused matched the DNA r esult from the cervical OS swab of the
complainant . See exhibit NN.

18. M[...] F[...] M[...] (count 31 – 32) testified that on the 14th January 2021 at
around 10h00 pm, she felt something touching her. She opened her eyes and saw a
man standing outside the window which was wide open, opening the curtain and
pulling it to the side so she could see him clearly. She screamed as she did not
expect anyone to be there. The man pointed a gun at her, warning to shoot her
should she scream again. The man had her laptop bag in his hand, which he
managed to take from her bed through the window. In the laptop bag were her
personal documents. While sti ll pointing a gun at her, the man ordered her to stand,
so he could see her body structure . Thereafter, he ordered her to give him her laptop
which was on the chair, further from the window, her cell phone and money, further
ordering her to write her lapto p and cell phone pin on a piece of paper for him, and
hand them to him. He said that she should open the door which she did, thinking that
he wanted more things to take for himself. He pulled a kinife out of his pocket, told
her to remove her underwear, la y on her back on the bed and open her legs. He
unzipped his trouser and inserted his penis in her vagina, while still holding the knife
in his hand. He ordered her to change her position so she could lie on her tummy on
the bed and open her legs and insert ed his penis into her vagina from behind. He
then took a bucket that she uses to urinate in during the night, discarded the urine
which was inside the said bucket, poured water taken from the kettle, in it and
ordered her to use the water to wash her vagin a. After washing her vagina and when
the man was ready to leave, he told her that he is not afraid of the police and that’s
why he didn’t bother in wearing a balaclava and then told her to open the gate for
him. When the man left, she went back to h er room and cried so loud that three guys
from the main house and the lady from the backroom came to her. The matter was
reported to the police. And she also received treatment from the Laudium hospital.
Identification was held and she was able to identify the ac cused as the perpetrator.
See exhibit VV3. The DNA of the accused matched the DNA found on the blanket of
the complainant. See exhibit NN.

19. N[...] T[...] M[...] (count 33 – 35) resided at 7 [...] t [...] v [...], Phillip Nel Park,
Pretoria West with her husband and sister. She t estified that on the 03rd of May
2021 around 04h00 am and while sleeping with her new born baby, she felt
something touching her shoulder. When she opened her eyes, she realised that
there was a male person holding a knife and a gun. The intruder had broken into her
house. The mal e person said to her that he wants a phone. There were two phones
and a laptop bag with a laptop inside, laying on the headboard , and he took them. As
he took them, it seemed he was communicating with so meone from outside. At that
time, she had her child i n her arms, the male person took the child away from her,
then instructed her to undress, face backwards, undress and bent down. He placed
the child on top of the bed and threatened her, saying if she didn’t comply with his
instructions, he would stab the child with the knife. He then also undressed and
inserted his penis i nto her vagina. Throughout the act of penetration , the man had a
knife in his hand. After he raped her, he demanded for money. She indicated to the
man that she did not have money except for the R200 that she had put inside of a
pouch of the phone he took. He collected two phones from the headboard, a laptop,
another phone from the kitchen table and a Capitec Bank card, and ordered her to
give out the pin numbers linked to the laptop an d bank card. She did as was ordered .
He then instructed her to lie back in bed and he covered her with a blanket and
instructed her to sleep. After a while, she realised that the man was gone as it was
now silent. She then woke up and went to her sister to na rrate all that had happened.
Her sister contacted her husband who was at the time at work. A fter a while , the
husband came back home. U pon his arrival, her husband took her to the police
station in Pretoria West , where she narrated the whole ordeal to the police. The
police went to their house with them, just to witness the place of the incident and to
collect finger prints. Warrant officer C loette , was the one who uplifted the finger print
on the 3 of May 2021 from the outside of the slidin g door frame abo ve the handle.
He found a left thumbprint corresponding with the thumb of the accused through
exhibit I,J,K. Thereafter she was taken to the Laudium hospital for medical attention,
examinations and counselling. The DNA of the accused matches the DNA found on
the vestibule swab of the complainant. See exhibit NN. The incident has impacted
her in that she had to r elocate from the place of the incident. The witness was not
able to identify the perpetrator.

20. S[...] M[...] (counts 36 & 37) – testified that on the 30th July 2021 at around
07h00 am , she was walking to school, Pretoria West High School to write her exams.
As she was walking across the cemetery, she came across a male person who
walked towards her. The male person started walking very quickly towards her. She
took a few steps backwards as she wanted to run away but the male person grabbed
her by her braids(Hair) and pulled her braids around his hand , so she would not
manage to move. She felt very painful as he r front part hair was removed. H e
searched her school jacket and removed her p hone from her pocket, removed the
sim card and gave it to her. He then pulled out an okapi knife and pointed it at her as
they were just walking around in the cemetery. The accused received a phone call
where he instructed whoever was calling him to stab t he person and leave him lying
there. He pulled her down on someone’s grave. He instructed her to remove her
pants. She pleaded with him , but he held the knife closer to her. She then removed
her trouser and panties up to her knees, and he also removed his pants, ordering her
to lie down. He then forcefully inserted his penis inside her vagina and penetrated
her by force while she was crying. After penetrating her , he got up and told her to get
dressed and he said she was no longer going to see her family as he was going to
sell her. She pleaded with him and told him that her mother would give her money
and she would give it to him. Shortly after that, the accused left and she also left
through a small passage from the cemetery that led to the tar road. She s aw a slow
moving veh icle and she ran towards it, banged it , crying out for help. The car
stopped. A lady alighted from the said vehicle and asked her what had happened.
She narrated the whole ordeal to her and borrowed her cell phone so she could call
her mother. Shortly after the phone call, the mother arrived and they both went to her
school to explain to her principal that she would not be able to write her exams. They
then proceeded to the police station where they opened a case and took her to the
Laud ium Clinic so she could be examined by a doctor. The DNA of the accused
matched the DNA on the vagina swab of the complainant. See exhibit NN. This
whole ordeal impacted on her in such a way that she had to relocate in order to
avoid the cemetery route to school. She was admitted in a psychiatric ward at Vista
Clinic in Centurion because of the trauma .

21. D[...] M[...] (count 38) , testified that on 28 August 2021, around 06h00 in the
morning, she was at home with her mother, sister and cousin, T[...] M[...] sleeping.
As she was sleeping with her mom, she heard a scream. She and her mother both
jumped out of bed to find out w hat was happening. When they opened the bedroom
door they saw a male wearing a blue jacket and a blue bucket hat and holding a
knife. The intruder had broken into the house. The male began moving backwards
towards the living room exit door, with the knife pointing at them. She continued to
scream to get the neighbour’s attention and then picked up her phone and called the
police. H owever, the male exited the door and fled. Upon his exit, she began to look
around and noticed that her laptop, charger and head sets were missing. The police
officer mochekgec hekge uplifted the palm print from the buglar outside the sitting
room. Police officer F, Joubert compared the palm print and found that it was a left
palm print of the accused. This is found on exhibit RR, SS , TT and UU. The witness
was not able to identify the perpetrator.

22. T[...] M[...] (witness on 38) – (cousin to D[...] M[...] ) confirmed D[...] ’s testimony.
She h owever , was able to identify accused .

23. Z[...] L[...] N[...] (count 39 - 40) – testified that in the morning of 12 November
2021 , she was on her way to campus to write an exam. She came across an
unknown man, who drew out a gun and pointed it at her. The unknown man
instructed her to go back with him , and as they we re heading back, he drew back the
firearm and took out a knife from the pocket of his trouser , then instructed her to
proceed heading down an unknown spot close to a graveyard. Upon arrival, the man
demanded from her, a cell phone, laptop and money. He too k her cell phone as she
did not have the rest of the other things and instructed her to undress. He also
undressed his trousers. He instructed her to fa ce the opposite direction, leaving the
unknown man to be behind her , and further instructed her to bend down. He then
inserted his penis in the complainant’s vagina from behind and raped her. After the
ordeal, the man threatened to kill her but she begged for her life. As a result, she
was later released by the man. She headed to campus and met a lady (siste r Pretty) ,
who drove her to the campus clinic after she had explained the ordeal that
happened, to her. Medical tests were conducted at the campus clinic and a rape
case was opened at the Pretoria West Police station. The police took her to the local
clinic in Pretoria West and the Doctor performed further medical tests. The DNA of
the accused was found on the cervix swab from the complainant. See exhibit NN.
After th is incident , the complainant was struggling with her studies and attempted
suicide on two counts. The witness was not able to identify the perpetrator.

24. H[...] E[...] L[...] (Count 41- 42) testified that on 11 May 2022, she was in her
room sleeping with her minor child , when she was awakened by the accused
standing beside her and pointing a knife towar ds her neck. The intruder had broken
into her room. She tried to scream but the accused warned her that he would kill her
minor child. The man ordered her to undress her night dr ess and underwear. With a
knife in his hand , he ordered her to move closer to the chest drawer which was just
beside the bed. He instructed her to bend over towards her bed and forcefully
inserted his penis from behind, into her vagina and penetrated her. He then seized
two pairs of shoes, a tablet and a phone. After the man left, she proceeded to her
mom’s room and screamed for her mother’s attention, that there was an intruder in
her room. Her mother set the ADT alarm on, and the ADT intel came along wit h the
police. She went to the Pretoria West police station with the police to record a
statement and was later taken to the Laudium hospital where she received medical
attention and counselling. The DNA result of the accused matches the DNA from the
vagina l swab of the complainant. She testified that she attended the Identity Parade.
The witness was able to identify the perpetrator at the identification parade . See
exhibit WW, and VV 1-2.

25. Justice Nungu (count 43) resides at [...] B [...] Street, Danville Pretoria West, in
a double storey house with his wife and two kids. On the 27th June 2022 at around
10h00 pm, he and his family went to sleep. All the windows were closed and doors to
the house were locked. Around 3 A M. He heard someone making a noise, and
uttering words regarding the T.V. , he had just bought the previous day on 26th June
2022. He then woke up and went to the ground floor to check on the T.V and
discovered that there was a housebreaking and that the t.v was stolen. He went out
and took his car out of the garage and drove around with the hope that he’d see the
intruder but failed. He then proceeded to the Pretoria West Police station to report
the incident. H e believes the intruder gained access to the house through the
bathroom window on the ground floor, as he noticed that it was wide open. The
police came t o his house the very same day to investigate , looking f or finger prints.
Warrant officer Mkhari uplift ed the right palm print at the bathroom window tile inside
the house. A fter comparison , it was found to be the accused’s palm print. This is on
exhibit K, L, M, N.

26. N[...] N[...] V[...] (count 44) , was residing at E [...] Apartments, Phillip Nel Park,
Pretoria West with her boyfriend L [...] S [...]. On the 3rd of April 2022 , her colleague
dropped her off at a Sasol Garage around 11h00 pm in Phillip Nel Park , where on
agreement , her boyfriend was to collect her. A man app roached her and asked her
why she looked so worried, and she told the man that she was waiting for her
boyfriend. The man offered to walk her down to her house as he was very friendly
towards her, promising that she would arrive home safely. As they were w alking,
they got closer to the bush and that’s when the man now became aggressive and
instructed her to walk into the bush. He instructed her to lie down on the ground and
he pulled out a knife and tore the front part of her trousers open with the knife. H e
undress ed his trousers and inserted his penis into her vagina. At all material times
during the penetration, the knife was in his hand. He then told her that he was going
to kill her. She begged for her life and explained to the man that she was four
months pregnant. After the rape, he stood up dressed and started searching the bag
saying he wants anything valuable. He found an iphone and instructed her to remove
the sim card from the phone. He however , did not take the phon e and said he didn’t
want an i phone as it would cause him to be caught. He instructed her to stand up so
they could go. As they were walking outside the bush, she saw her boyfriend’s car
approaching. Her boyfriend also noticed that it was her and he stopped. She quickly
ran to the car a nd got inside and narrated to the boyfriend that she was raped. Her
boyfriend tried to chase him but did not manage to apprehend him. They then drove
to the Pretoria West Police Station to report the incident. A statement was taken
down by the po lice and t hey instructed her not to take a bath. In the morning, the
police came to her house, so that she could point out the area in the bush where she
was raped and then proceeded to the Laudium Clinic where she got medical
attention. The DNA of the accused match ed the DNA results found on the vaginal
vault of the complainant. See exhibit NN. After the whole ordeal, it was very difficult
for her to stay in Pretoria. She had to resign from her job and relocate to Witbank.
She also had to abandon her relationship as the relationship was no longer the same
thereafter. The witness was able to identify the perpetrator.

28. A[...] M[...] (count 45 -46) testified that she resided at no. [...] E [...] place, Phillip
Nel Park, Pretoria West with her elder sister, her two children and her own child. On
14 August 2022, her sister left at around 5h00 am to attend a funeral. She remained
asleep with her daughter, while her sister’s minor daughter was s leeping in the other
room. As she was sleeping, she felt something tapping her shoulders. She opened
her eyes and realised that there was a male person who had a cell phone in his left
hand with the flash light on and a knife in his right hand. He placed the knife on her
neck and then on her daughter’s neck, threatening to stab her child should she make
a noise or not comply with any of his instructions. The intruder had broken and
entered her room. He instructed her to move from the bed side of the window,
towards the door and to undress. She was reluctant in undress ing, but the intruder
told her that , if she didn’t do as told, he would hit the child against the wall. She
undressed and lay on her side on the bed. The suspect inserted his penis in her
vagina, then removed it, and i nserted his licked fingers in her vagina then re -inserted
his penis again in her vagina. After he was done, and as he was trying to zip his
trousers , his phone fell, resulti ng in the flashlight illuminati ng his face, for her to see
him. He then told her t o sleep as he exited the room. On his way out, he took a bag
which was on the table in the living room. When he left, she wanted to contact her
sister but realised that all three phones that were in the house had disappeared
including two laptops. She went to the neighbour’s house, Mr. Netshifhefhe . She
found the gate locked and then sho uted his name. He came out, opened the gate for
her and she rushed towards him crying and narrated what had happened to her. Mr
Netshifhefhe took his car and accompanied the complaint to search for the intruder.
As they were driving, s he saw him walking barefoot . There was a police van which
was approaching; Mr Netshifhefhe approached it and requested for help . The police
van and Mr. Netshifhe fhe drove towards the intruder. Mr Netshifhefhe, t he neighbour
alighted from the vehicle and ran towards the intruder who ran into the bush. Both
Mr. N etshifhefhe and the police officer ran after the accused and ended up
apprehending him. The police office r called for other officers who were on duty as he
was off duty. The police officers came and took the accused and the victim t ogether
with Mr. N etshifhefhe to the police station. They all drove down to the police stati on
for her statement to be recorded. After the statement was recorded, the complainant
was taken by the police officers to Laudium hospital , where medical tests were
performed on her. The DNA of the accused was found on the OS swab taken from
the complainant at the hospital. This ordeal has s everely affected her as she had to
relocate to Soweto and stay with her other sister. She abandoned her studie s as well
due to the trauma . The witness was able to identify the perpetrator.

29. Ndivhuwo Daniel Netshifhefhe (witness for Count 45 and the arre st of the
accused) testified that he resided at [...] E[...] T[...] Street, Phillip Nel Park, Pretoria
West, and was a neighbor of A[...] M[...] , a complainant in this matter.
On Sunday, 14 August 2022, at approximately 06:00 am , while he was sleeping, he
heard his name being called by a female voice outside. He woke up and quickly ran
outside, where he found A[...] crying for help and requesting that he open his gate.
Upon opening the gate, A[...] ran towards him, hugged him while crying, and
narrated the incident that had just occurred.
He then asked her whether she could identify the perpetrator, to which she
responded affirmatively. He proceeded to take her into his vehicle and dro ve around
their neighborhood in search of the suspect. While driving along Vom Hagen Street
near a bridge, A[...] pointed out the accused, stating that he was the person who had
raped and robbed her. To avoid alerting the accused, he continued drivi ng further
down the road to seek assistance in apprehending him.
As he approached a set of traffic lights, he noticed a police van parked nearby. He
stopped and informed the police officers in the van that he needed assistance in
arresting an individual wh o had raped and robbed his child. He then drove back to
Vom Hagen Street, with the police van following behind. Upon spotting the accused,
he stopped his car approximately two meters away from him, while the police van
stopped behind his vehicle.
As soon a s he exited his car, the accused attempted to flee. He pursued the
accused, who ran into a nearby bush. Choosing not to enter the bush, he waited
outside, and shortly thereafter, the accused emerged and ran westward. He
continued pursuing the accused for a pproximately 13 meters, eventually catching up
to him, pulling him down, and restraining him by sitting on him.
He then informed the accused of the reason for his arrest. In response, the accused
admitted to stealing the bag containing the laptop and mobil e phones but denied
raping A[...]. After this admission, he stood up, restrained the accused, and led him
back to the bush where the accused claimed to have left the stolen bag. Upon
reaching the bush, he realized that he had lost his sandals and wo uld not be able to
enter the area without risking injury or allowing the accused to escape.
He then pulled the accused to the other side of the bush, where the accused pointed
out the location of the backpack. While restraining the accused with one hand, h e
bent down and retrieved the bag. Throughout this time, the police officers were
following closely behind him.
As he attempted to escort the accused towards the road, the accused began
resisting and fighting back. To prevent his escape, he sat on the accu sed until
additional police officers arrived. Upon their arrival, he handed the accused over to
them. They then proceeded together to the Pretoria West Police Station, where he
provided his statement. Shortly thereafter, the police took A[...] to a doctor in
Laudium for medical attention.

30. Trevor Seleka (Counts 45 and 46) – Arrest and Detention of the Accused

Trevor Seleka testified that , on 14 August 2022, at approximate ly 06:45 am , he
arrested the accused, Mr. Maruma . While on duty, he received a call from Captain
Olivier requesting their urgent presence at Vom Hagen Street, Pretoria West. He
proceeded to the scene in a state vehicle, accompanied by Warrant Officer Clusta
and Constable Nguna.
Upon arrival, they found Captain Olivier and Mr. Netshifhefhe restraining the
accused on the ground. A woman, carrying a baby, was also present and crying. He
approached the woman and inquired why she was distressed. She then recounted
the ordeal to him.
He immediately requested the assistance of Warrant Officer Clusta and Constable
Nguna in arresting the accused. During the arrest, he informed the accused of his
rights. The accused was in possession of a school bag, which he claimed belonged
to him. Howev er, the victim confirmed that the contents of the bag were hers. Upon
searching the bag, he found two laptops, a cellphone, and a knife. Warrant Officer
Clusta took possession of the items with the intention of booking them under SAP
13, where exhibits fro m suspects are ordinarily registered.
They then proceeded to the Pretoria West Police Station, where, at the request of
the victim, a female police officer recorded her statement.

Application for Discharge

[10] At the close of the State’s case, the accused applied for discharge on Count
5, where the complainant, M[...] B[...] M[...] , collapsed during her testimony and was
unable to complete her evidence due to the excessive trauma she had suffered. The
accused also applied for discharge on: Count 11: Complainant B[...] R[...] , who is
currently in South Korea and was unable to testify. Counts 14 & 15: Complainant
N[...] M[...] , who has since passed away (see Exhibit D ). Counts 16 & 17:
Complainant T[...] J[...], who could not be traced and, there fore, did not testify. The
court granted the application for discharge on Counts 5, 11, 16, and 17. The accused
was accordingly found not guilty and discharged on these counts in terms of Section
174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 . However, on co unt 14 and 15 the
application was denied.

[11] At the close of the state's case, the accused did not testify and elected to
remain silent, choosing to close his case despite knowing that there was fingerprint,
DNA, and identification parade evidence linkin g him to the crime and the crime
scene. The Constitution of South Africa (Section 35(3)(h)) grants accused persons
the right not to testify and to remain silent. Osman and Another v Attorney -General,
Transvaal 1998 (4) SA 1224 (CC) Madala J para 50:

“Our legal system is an adversarial one. Once the prosecution has produced
evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case, an accused who fails to
produce evidence to rebut that case is at risk. The failure to testify does not
relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. An
accused, however, always runs the risk that, absent any rebuttal, the
prosecution’s case may be sufficient to prove the elements of the offence. The
fact that an accused has made such an el ection is not a breach of the right to
remain silent”.

Again in S v Boesak (CCT25/00) [2000] ZACC 25; 2001 (1) BCLR 36; 2001 (1) SA
912 (CC) (1 December 2000) para [24] and [ 25] (‘ The right to remain silent during
trial and the potential consequences of exercising this right.’)

“[24] The right to remain silent has application at different stages of a criminal
prosecution. An arrested person is entitled to remain silent and may not be
compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in
evidence against that person. It arises again at the trial stage when an
accus ed has the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to
testify during the proceedings. The fact that an accused person is under no
obligation to testify does not mean that there are no consequences attaching
to a decision to remain silent during the trial. If there is evidence calling for an
answer, and an accused person chooses to remain silent in the face of such
evidence, a court may well be entitled to conclude that the evidence is
sufficient in the absence of an explanation to prove t he guilt of the accused.
Whether such a conclusion is justified will depend on the weight of the
evidence.

[25] Similarly, if in the course of the trial there is evidence that a document
was written by the accused, and if the accused fails to challenge that
evidence, or raise forgery as an issue, a court may be entitled to hold that in
the absence of testimony from the accused the evidence is sufficient to prove
that the accused was the author of the document. That is what the SCA did in
the present cas e. It analysed the evidence it considered to be relevant to this
issue and came to the conclusion that in the absence of a challenge or
evidence to the contrary there was sufficient proof that the letter had been
written by Dr Boesak. ”

[12] Courts may dr aw an adverse inference from the accused’s silence, especially
if the State has presented strong prima facie evidence, as in this case, where there
is an overwhelming amount of evidence linking the accused to the crimes committed
against the complainants. However, silence alone is not proof of guilt. The state has
a burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused on the totality of
the evidence presented , before an inference of guilt can be drawn. In Thebus and
Another v S (CCT36/02) [2003] ZACC 12; 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC); 2003 (10) BCLR
1100 (CC); 2003 (2) SACR 319 (CC) (28 August 2003) para 84,

[84] Another explanation commonly given for the rule against adverse
inferences is the principle that the state bears the onus of p roving
every element of an offence without the assistance of the accused. It
is clear from our Constitution that the presumption of innocence implies
that an accused person may only be convicted if it is established
beyond a reasonable doubt that he or sh e is guilty of the offence. That,
in turn, requires the proof of each element of the offence. However,
our Constitution does not stipulate that only the state’s evidence may
be used in determining whether the accused person has been proved
guilty. Indee d, our law has always recognised that the question of
whether the accused has been proven guilty or not is one to be
determined on a conspectus of all the admissible evidence, whatever
its provenance. This principle, too, cannot therefore found a valid
objection to the drawing of adverse inferences ”.

In this case at hand, t he state has presented evidence based on fingerprints,
identification parade, testimony of the complainants as well as DNA results from the
forensic laboratory to prove their case.

Finger prints evidence

[13] On counts 29 and 30, at the room of N[...] N[...] , police officer Dawie Cloete
lifted a fingerprint from a glass bottle on top of the fridge. This fingerprint was found
to be the left ring finger of the accused (see exhibits E, F, G, and H).
Furthermore, on counts 33, 34, and 35, at the house of N[...] T[...] M[...] , police officer
Dawie Cloete lifted a fingerprint from the sliding door frame. It was again found to
match the accused’s left thumb (see exhibits I, J, K, and H).
On count 38, at the house of D[...] M[...] , police officer Motshekgetshekge lifted a
palm print from the burglar bars outside the sitting room. This left palm print was
found to match the accused’s left palm print (see exhibits RR, SS, TT, and UU).
On count 43, at Justice Nungu ’s house, a palm print was also lifted by police officer
Mkhari from the bathroom window tile inside the bathroom. This right palm print was
found to match the accused’s right palm print (see exhibits K, L, M, and N) .

[14] All experts had impressions of two fingers to analyze for the purposes of their
comparison. They all found the minimum required number of identical points on
these comparison s. The expert witnesses were thoroughly cross -examined and
could not be shaken. The fingerprint evidence prese nted by these experts , (Warrant
Officer Dawie Cloete, Warrant Officer Mkhari, and Warrant Officer Jouber t), were
satisfactory in all material respects, as all the points of identity relied upon by them
were not disputed by the defense during cross -examinat ion and I could also clearly
see that the points which were mentioned were indeed so identical . I was satisfied
that their evidence was reliable. Their observations and comparisons of the uplifted
fingerprints or palm prints with the obtained fingerprints or palm prints on SAP 192
were reliable, and the court could draw inferences from their evidence alone. In
Coopers (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Deutsche Gesellschaft für Schädlingsbekämpfung
MbH 1976 (3) SA 352 (A), the following was stated at 370E –G:

"In the ultimate result, it is the court's duty to construe the specification and on
the merits to draw inferences from the facts established by the evidence."

[15] I have found that , the State proved that the accused’s fingerprints were found
at the crime sce nes on count 29,30, 33, 34, 35,38 and 43. This creates prima facie
evidence which is circumstantial in nature that he was present at the scenes . The
accused did not testify to explain how his fingerprints got t here at these scenes of
crime . In Sebidi and Others v S (CA 48/22) [2023] ZANWHC 151 (29 August 2023)
on para 23 -24, Reddy AJ quoted with approval , the case of S v Legate 2001 (2)
SACR 179 (SCA) at para [3], where Harms JA stated as follows in respect of the
probative value of fingerprint evidence (Loosely translated from Afrikaans):

[23] "[3] The value of fingerprints as evidentiary material to link an accused to
a crime , is well known. Normally , it provides not only p rima facie evidence but
often, is conclusive (see S v Arendse 1970 (2) SA 367 (C); S v van Wyk 1982
(2) SA 148 (NC). ….

[24] The palm print, which is classified as fingerprint evidence of the second
appellant , lifted from the right side of the boot , is classified as circumstantial
evidence. In R v Blom 1939 AD 188 at 202 - 203 Watermeyer JA outlined the
approach to circumstantial evidence as follows:

"In reasoning by reference in a criminal case , there are two cardinal rules of
logic which cannot be ignored. The first rule is that , the inference sought to be
drawn must be consistent with all the proven facts; if it is not so, the inference
cannot be drawn. The second rule is that , the proven facts should be suc h
that they exclude every reasonable inference from the proven facts , save the
one that is sought to be drawn: if these proven facts do not exclude all other
reasonable inferences, then there must be doubt whether the inference
sought to be drawn is correc t.

[16] I find in this case at hand that , the fingerprint evidence is sufficient for a
conviction , especially because the accused failed to provide a reasonable
explanation for the presence of his finger prints at the crime scene. The accused' s
inability to explain how his fingerprints were found at the crime scene could justify an
inference of guilt in this case. Therefore , he will be convicted based solely on the
fingerprint evidence on counts 29,30, 33, 34, 35,38 and 43 .

Identification Parade Procedures:

[17] The accused was identified by the complainants M[...] M[...] and H[...] L[...], on
count 31, 32, 40 and 42 at an identification parade , held at Attridgeville police
station. In Phetla and Another v S (A632/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 555 (24 June
2016) para 31 -32, the court emphasized the importance of proper procedures in
conducting identification parades to prevent false impressions regarding a witness's
ability to identify the accused. The reliability o f an identification parade heavily
depends on its proper conduct. Failure to adhere to established procedures can
diminish the probative value of the identification. It's crucial for the prosecution to
lead evidence , demonstrating that all safeguards were observed during the parade.

[18] The identificatio n parade conducted in this case, was properly carried out in
accordance with established identification procedures. This is evident from the
exhibits submi tted, namely, Exhibit VV1 -3 and WW1 -3, which confir m that the
accused was identified as the perpetrator in a lineup consisting of eight individuals,
as reflected in the photograph taken by Constable Patrick Ntsoane. The parade was
supervised by Sergeant Mafa.
During the identification parade of H[...] L[...], Makwatse Mugedi guarded the witness
before she attended the parade. Naledi Gumede esc orted the witness to the parade,
Ronald Khoza escorted the witness from the parade, and Makwatse Mugedi guarded
the witness after the parade. Similarly, during the identif ication parade of M[...] M[...] ,
Thomas Mafuna guarded the witness before she attended the parade, Ronald Khoza
escorted the witness to the parade, Naledi Gumede escorted the witness from the
parade, and Thomas Mafuna guarded the witness after the parade.
The SAPS 329 form indicates that, both complainants remained calm and confident
in identifying the accused as the perpetrator. H[...] L[...] identified the accused within
two minutes , while M[...] M[...] did so within one minute. The integrity of the
identification parades remained intact, and no procedural irregularities were
identified that could undermine the reliability or evidentiary weight of the
identifications. I am satis fied that the procedures followed , were proper and reliable
in the circumstances .

[19] Counsel for the defence, with consent, agreed to the admission of Exhibits
VV1-3 and WW1 -3 as evidence in this matter and further admitted the contents
thereof. In S v G roenewald 2005 (2) SACR 597 (SCA) para 33:

“[33] An admission is an acknowledgment of a fact. When proved or made
formally during judicial proceedings, it dispenses with the need for proof in
regard to that fact. Wigmore on Evidence; Revised edition of: A treatise on the
Anglo -American system of evi dence in trials at common law. 3rd edition 1940,
calls it 'a method of escaping from the necessity of offering any evidence at
all': a 'waiver relieving the opposing party from the need of any evidence'.

[20] The accused did not testify in rebuttal of th is evidence. Consequently, the only
version before the court is that which was presented by the State. While an
accused's right to remain silent is constitutionally protected, an adverse inference
may be drawn where the State presents compelling identifica tion evidence; such as
a positive identification of the accused by the complainant during a properly
conducted identification parade; and the accused elects not to testify in his defence.
The inference is that , the accused is the culprit who was seen by th e complainants
on count 31, 32, 40, 42 at their houses during the commission of the offences. (S v
Tandwa and Others 2008 (1) SACR 613 (SCA) at paras 119 –120). See also R v
Blom 1939 AD 188 ( inference to be drawn) .

[21] In respect of counts 9, 10, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 35, 44, 45, and 46, the
complainants ( B[...] D[...] M[...] , C[...] P[...], L[...] I[...] D[...] , H[...] A[...] M[...] , N[...]
M[...] , N[...] V[...], and A[...] M[...] ), also identified the accused in court while he was
seated in the accused’s dock. Their identification was based on distinct facial
features, par ticularly his prominent gold tooth at the front and his notably large eyes,
which they had observed during the commission of the offenses. In S v Charzen and
another 2006 (2) SACR 143 (SCA)para 11 , remarks on the dangers of relying solely
on dock identification without prior proper identification procedures, underscoring the
necessity of conducting fair and reliable identification parades.

“But, as our courts have emphasised again and again, in matters of
identification , honesty, sincerity and subj ective assurance are simply not
enough. There must in addition , be certainty beyond reasonable doubt that
the identification is reliable, and it is generally recognised in this regard that
evidence of identification based upon a witness’s recollection of a person’s
appearance can be ‘dangerously unreliable’, and must be approached with
caution.”

[22] The complainant N[...] M[...] , on cou nt 33,34,35 has also identified the
accused during identification parade. Her identification of the accused is reliable in
this case because she had identified him before , at the identification parade. The re is
a corroboration that satisfies the cautionary rule placed on doc k identification.

[23] In S v Mthetwa 1972 (3) SA 766 (A): 768A -C, the court emphasized the need
for caution in relying on identification evidence, highlighting factors such as lighting,
the witness's opportunity for observation, and the duration of the observation. The
complainants in counts 9, 10, 25, 26, 27, 28, 44, 45, and 46 ( C[...] P[...], L[...] I[...]
D[...] , H[...] A[...] M[...] , N[...] V[...], and A[...] M[...] ) did not only identify the accused
during dock identification, but forensic evidence further corroborated their
identification. DNA analysis conducted on swabs taken f rom the complainants by a
medical practitioner , matched the DNA profile of the accused. This DNA evidence
was admitted by the defense counsel during the trial, along with the contents thereof.
Given the forensic confirmation, the possibility of an erroneou s dock identification in
this instance does not exist. This caution is satisfied by the corroboration provided
through DNA evidence, which confirms that the complainants correctly identified the
accused as the perpetrator on count 9, 10, 25, 26, 27, 28, 44, 45, and 46.

The DNA evidence

[24] In respect of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27,28, 29, 30, 31, 32,33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, and
46, the DNA analysis conducted on swabs taken from the complainants by a medical
practitioner , matched the DNA profile of the accused. In Bokolo Bokolo v
S (483/12) [2013] ZASCA 115 (18 September 2013) para 18 :

“[18] Evidence that the STR profile of an accused person matches that of a
sample taken at the scene or can be included therein, is circumstantial
evidence. The weight thereof depends on a number of factors. These include:
(i) the establishment of the chain evidence, i.e. that the respective samples
were properly taken and safeguarded until they were tested in the laboratory;
(ii) the proper functioning of the machines and equipment used to produce the
electropherograms;
(iii) the a cceptability of the interpretation of the electropherograms;
(iv) the probability of such a match or inclusion in the particular
circumstances;
(v) the other evidence in the case.”

[25] Exhibit A1 , contains admissions made by the accused, which were read into
the record by his counsel in terms of section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977. These admissions pertain to the chain of custody of DNA evidence, from the
collection of swabs by med ical practitioners at the hospital to their analysis at the
forensic laboratory. The evidence was submitted in court as Exhibits A1 and P
through MM.
The defense counsel and the accused admitted that the specimens collected from
the complainants were prope rly sealed and that the evidence collection kits
remained sealed. While in the possession of the Forensic Science Laboratory
personnel, the seals remained intact and were not tampered with. Furthermore,
buccal samples were collected from the accused, and t he collection kit was sealed.
The seal remained intact and untampered with , while in the custody of the Forensic
Science Laboratory personnel.

[26] Warrant Officer Jeannie Eileen Yana Van Dyk, a duly qualified forensic
analyst, received all the sealed ca se profiles and conducted the necessary forensic
analysis, making findings as recorded in Exhibits NN and OO. Similarly, Warrant
Officer Phokela Mogashoa, a forensic analyst, received the case profiles of A[...]
M[...] and the accused , and made his f indings as documented in Exhibit PP.
Both analysts concluded that DNA analysis conducted on the swabs taken from the
complainants matched the DNA profile of the accused. The defense counsel
consented to the admission of Exhibits NN to PP in court and furth er admitted the
contents thereof, including the forensic process undertaken and the results
confirming that the accused’s DNA was present in the swabs . I am satisfied that the
chain evidence properly preserved the integrity of the DNA evidence. I am satisf ied
that the results were generated using the standard laboratory procedures which are
also internationally accepted.

[27] Despite the overwhelming DNA evidence in the rape charges, the accused
elected not to testify or provide any rebuttal. The combination of compelling forensic
evidence and the accused’s silence often leads courts to conclude that the State has
discharged i ts burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Nkwanyana v S
(AR108/16) [2016] ZAKZPHC 82 (27 September 2016) at para 17, the court held:

“[17] It is our view that the only inference that ought to be drawn is that the
appellant had sexual intercourse wit h the victim, and this is in line with R v
Blom 1939 AD 188.”

[28] In respect of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, and 46, I
am satisfied tha t the reliable DNA evidence supports the inference that the accused
unlawfully broke into the complainants’ residences and committed rape and robbery
with aggravating circumstances.

Single evidence of single witness es

[29] It is, however, a well-established judicial principle that the evidence of a single
witness should be approached with caution, his or her merits as a witness being
weighed against factors which militate against his or her credibility. The evidence of
such a single witness, must be clear, credible, and satisfactory in all material
respects. In terms of section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977,
“An accused may be convict ed on the single evidence of any competent witness.”
However, courts have emphasized the need for caution when relying solely on a
single witness’s testimony ( S v Sauls and Others 1981 (3) SA 172 (A)) .

[30] All the witnesses testified in a clear and convincing manner, without
exaggeration. During cross -examination, they remained consistent and unwavering,
despite breaking down due to the trauma they had suffered. They recounted their
experiences with confidence, and no contradictions were identified i n their testimony.

[31] Although their evidence constitutes that of a single witness in certain
instances, independent facts corroborate their versions. See the case of S V Gentle
2005(1) SACR 420 (SCA) at 430j-430c , where it was said that It must be
emphasized that by corroboration is meant other evidence which supports the
evidence of the complainant and which renders the evidence of the accused less
probable, on the issues in dispute.

• In respect of counts 33, 34, and 35 , the complainant’s evidence is
corroborated by independent forensic evidence, including DNA analysis and
fingerprint evidence. Additionally, she was able to positively identify the
accused during her testimony in court.
• In respect of counts 41 and 42, the complainant’s evidence is supported by
DNA evidence, identification parade evidence, and dock identification.
• In respect of counts 31 and 32 , the complainant’s evidence is corroborated by
DNA and fingerprint evidence.
• In respect of counts 38 and 43 , the complainants’ evidence is supported by
fingerprint evidence.
• In respect of counts 9, 10, 25, 26, 27, 28, 44, 45, and 46 , the complainants’
evidence is corroborated by DNA evidence and dock identification.
• The complainant in respect of counts 45 and 4 6 identified the accused within
minutes after the incident and played a direct role in his apprehension, with
the assistance of her neighbor, Mr. Netshifhe fhe, who traced and
apprehended the suspect.
• In respect of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 36, 37, 39, and 40 , the complainants’ evidence is corroborated by DNA
evidence.

[32] During their testimony, it was evident that all the witnesses, except for one,
had no prior acquaintance with the accused. The sole witness who had seen him
before , testified that she had observed him working as a queue marshal at a taxi
rank. Apart from this, all other witnesses encountered the accused for the first time.
There is, therefore, no history of prior disputes between the a ccused and the
complainants.
The witnesses did not exaggerate their accounts, and despite the offences occurring
on different dates and in different provinces, they consistently described the same
modus operandi employed by the accused. Their versions alig n with common sense
and logic. It is inherently improbable that they would have failed to recognize the
accused, who unlawfully entered their homes and rooms.
The credibility and reliability of their evidence were thoroughly tested during cross -
examination , and they remained steadfast. The totality of their evidence is
satisfactory in all material respects .

Contravention of section 3 of A ct 32 of 2007 (Rape Charges) .

[33] The accused faces 20 counts of contravening section 3 of the Criminal Law
(Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 (rape). The
evidence clearly establishes that on counts 1, 3, 6, 8, 13, 15, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28,
29, 32, 34, 36, 40, 42, 44, and 46 , the complainants were sexually violated by the
accused, a s his DNA was found in the swabs taken from their vaginas .
On count 22 , the accused’s DNA was found on the carpet on which t he complainant
was forced to lay . On count 24 , his DNA was discovered on the complainant’s gown ,
which she was wearing at the time of the incident. On count 32 , his DNA was
identified on the blanket covering the bed where the offence took place.
All the complainants testified that the accused was armed with a knife , which he
used to threaten them in to submission. He placed the knife against their necks,
instilling fear for their lives. The accused forcibly penetrated each of the
complainants on the respective dates of the offences. The sexual penetration was
unlawful and non -consensual .
Furthermore, on count 13 , the complainant J[...] M[...] was a minor, aged 15 years, at
the time of the rape . Consequently, section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act 105 of 1997 is applicable for sentencing purposes.

Housebreaking with Intent to Rob and Robbery with Aggravating Circumstances .

[34] The accused also faces charges of housebreaking with intent to rob and
robbery with aggravating circumstances in respect of counts 2, 9, 12, 14, 18, 20, 23,
25, 31, 33, 41, and 45 . Various items, including cell phones, laptops, and money ,
were stolen from the complainants.
Except for count 45 , where the accused was traced, apprehended, and found in
possession of the stolen items , none of the other complainants were able to recover
their belongings.
On counts 2, 9, 14, 18, 20, 23, 41, and 45 , the accused threatened the complainants
with a knife, wielding it in close proximity to their faces . On counts 25 and 33 , he was
armed with both a knife and a firearm , brandishing both weapons t o intimidate the
victims. On count 31 , the accused used only a firearm to threaten the complainant.
The accused unlawfully broke into and entered the complainants’ residences while
they were asleep . Given that he was armed with a firearm and a knife , the r obberies
meet the definition of aggravating circumstances as contemplated in section 1 of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 .

Housebreaking with Intent to Steal and Theft

[35] On counts 38 and 43 , the complainants' houses were unlawfully broken into
while they were asleep .
On count 38 , the accused stole laptops and chargers . While inside the house, the
complainant shouted, prompting her mother and sister to wake up and check on her
in her sister’s room . The accused then fled the scene. It was lat er discovered that the
aforementioned items were missing.
On count 43 , the complainants woke up in the morning and found that their television
was missing . Upon further inspection, they discovered that the bathroom window had
been opened . A fingerprint matching that of the accused , was found at the scene.
The complainants were unable to recover their stolen items.

Housebreaking with Intent to Rape

[36] On counts 4 and 7 , the complainants’ residences were unlawfully broken into
while they were asleep , and the accused proceeded to rape them , as charged in
counts 6 and 8 .
On count 4 , the accused broke into a shack where the complainant, F[...] T[...], was
asleep with her friend, M[...] . Both women were raped . However, M[...] was so
severely traumatized that she was unable to complete her testimony . She repeatedly
fainted while testifying and ultimately decided not to p roceed with her evidence.
On count 7 , the complainant awoke to the sight of a shadow through her blanket .
When she opened her eyes, she saw the accused standing next to her bed. He
threatened her with a knife , placed against her throat and proceeded to rap e her.
DNA analysis confirmed that the accused’s DNA matched the swabs taken from both
complainants .

Attempted Rape

[37] Counts 10 and 22 relate to charges of attempted rape . On count 10 , the
accused broke into the complainant’s room , demanding sneakers and money . The
accused told the complainant that he did not intend to rape her because she was
menstruating. However, he proceeded to fondle her breasts and thighs without her
consent . The complainant testified that the accused did thi s, so that the other girl
who had already been raped would not feel alone in her suffering . This conduct does
not constitute attempted rape but rather sexual assault , as the accused touched the
complainant’s intimate body parts without her consent .
Section 5(1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment
Act 32 of 2007 defines sexual assault as including direct or indirect contact between
any part of the body of one person and the genital organs, anus, breasts, or any
other body part of another person in a sexual manner , short of penetration.
The accused committed this act without the complainant’s consent and
demonstrated intent to engage in such conduct. His decision not to rape her was
solely based on his fear of contracting an illness due to her menstruation, which
further demonstrates his predisposition to commit sexual violence .
Accordingly, the state failed to prove attempted rape but successfully proved sexual
assault .

[38] On count 22 , the accused intended to rape the com plainant but was unable to
complete the act due to his positioning and interruption by the complainant , who
begged him to use a condom .
The accused demonstrated a clear intention to unlawfully rape the complainant , as
he threatened her with a knife and use d force . However, he failed to complete the
act, thereby satisfying the legal requirements for attempted rape .

Robbery with Aggravating Circumstances

[39] On count 30 , the complainant was robbed of her bag, laptop, and cellphone
while the accused was in possession of a knife , which he had taken from the room.
The complainant was also raped on the same occasion . The aggravating
circumstance in this case is the accused’s use of the knife to threaten the
complainant .
On count 37 , while the complainant was walking to school, she encountered the
accused, who produced an Okapi knife and pointed it at her. He then took her
cellphone and proceeded to rape her on the same day .
On count 39 , the complainant was on her way to campus to write an examination
when she encountered the accused, who produced a firearm and demanded her
cellphone, laptop, and money . As the complainant did not have a laptop or money ,
the accused took only her cellphon e. She was also raped on that occasion . DNA
evidence confirmed that the biological material found at the scene matched the
accused . The aggravating circumstances in this case are the accused’s use of a
firearm and a knife to threaten and subdue the complai nant.

Theft

[40] On count 35 , the accused stole the complainant’s Capitec bank card and
demanded that she provide the PIN codes for both the laptop and the bank card . The
complainant complied out of fear , as the accused was threatening a child with a
knife . He warned that he would stab the child if she refused to comply . The
complainant was also raped on that day . Subsequently, the accused withdrew an
amount of R50.00 from the complainant’s Capitec bank account without her consent ,
thereby stealing her money . The accused’s fingerprint was found on the sliding door
frame of the complainant’s house , further linking him to the crime.

Findings on the Evidence

[41] I find that the state has proven its case against the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt .

• On counts 1, 3, 6, 8, 13, 15, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36, 40, 42, 44,
and 46 , the state has proven that the accused intentionally and sexually
penetrated the complainants without their consent , constituting rape.
• On counts 2, 9, 12, 14, 18, 20, 23, 25, 31, 33, 41, and 45 , the state has
proven that the accused unlawfully broke into the complainants' houses with
the intent to commit robbery and that he indeed committed robbery with
aggravating circumstances by wielding either a knife or a firearm .
• On counts 4 and 7 , the state has proven that the accused broke into the
complainants' houses with the intent to commit rape and, in fact, proceeded to
rape them .
• On counts 38 and 43 , the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that
the accused broke int o the complainants' houses and stole their property .
• On count 10 , the state failed to prove attempted rape but successfully proved
sexual assault against the accused.
• On count 22 , the state has successfully proven that the accused attempted to
rape the com plainant .
• On counts 30, 37, and 39 , the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that the accused committed robbery with aggravating circumstances by using
a firearm and/or a knife .
• On count 35 , the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused stole money belonging to the complainant .

Verdict

[42] Based on the evidence presented, the following verdict is entered:

1. On counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,
and 46 , the accused is found guilty as charged .

2. On count 10 , the accused is found not guilty of attempted rape but is found
guilty of sexual assault .


__________________________
M. Munzhelele
Judge of the High Court, Pretoria


Heard: 28-October 2024 - 24 March 2025
Delivered: 24 March 2025

Counse l for the State: Adv. Tshabalala
Counsel for the Accused: Ms. Masete