SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: SS007/2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
V[...] R[...] N[...] Accused
JUDGMENT
STRYDOM, J
[1] Mr. V[...] R[...] N[...] (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) was indicted
before this Court on the following charges: Count 1: Murder read with section
51(1) of Act 105 of 1997 and Count 2: Attempted Murder read with section
51(1) of Act 105 of 1997
[2] T he accused pleaded not guilty to both counts and provided no plea
explanation.
[3] The accused was warned about the applicability of section 51(1) of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 and what the consequences might be on
conviction. He indicated that he understood this.
[4] The accused was legally represented during the trial by Mr Rambau.
2
[5] Mr. Zuma, on behalf of the State, then handed into evidence the following
documents, which the accused confirmed were not in dispute and admitted:
1. EXHIBIT “A” Admissions in terms of section 220 of the Criminal Procedure
Act 51 of 1977 (“the CPA”)
2. EXHIBIT “B” Declaration of death
3. EXHIBIT “C” Postmortem Report
4. EXHIBIT “D” A Forensic Statement , sketch plan, a key to the sketch plan
and photographs.
5. EXHIBIT “E” Medical examination: J88 in respect of G[...] P[...].
6. EXHIBIT “F” Report of Dr KN Retief, a neurosurgeon who treated the
accused.
7. EXHIBIT “G” Ballistic report 1 W/O Mahlare
8. EXHIBIT “H” Ballistic report 2 W/O Mahlare
[6] During the trial, the following exhibits were admitted into evidence:
1. EXHIBIT ”I” The Forensic Social Work Competency Report in relation to the
minor witness G[...] P[...]
2. EXHIBIT "J” The statement of Mr Chilidzi Siphuma
3. EXHIBIT ”K” The statement of Mr Lindani Ntsobane
4. EXHIBIT “L” The warning statement of the accused made to the police.
[7] The State , in it s summary of substantial facts attached to the indictment ,
alleged that the accused, who was employed as a law enforcement officer,
used his official firearm to shoot his wife, his 4 -year-old son, and himself on 21
September 2023 in their home situated at 4 […] C[…] Street, L[…], Tembisa. It
is common cause that on this day , his wife C[…] M[…] died as a result of a
gunshot wound, that his son M[…] G[...] P[...] was shot through his right
3
shoulder, but survived, and that the accused was shot in his head, but also
survived.
[8] During the course of the tr ial, it became clear that t he defence of the accused
was that he was not responsible for firing any shots from his service pistol, and
he was , therefore, not the person who fired the shots that killed his wife and
injured himself and his son. The accused averred that a perpetrator gained
entrance into their flat and was the person who caused the shots to be fired.
[9] To prove its case, the State called various witnesses and further relied on the
contents of the admitted exhibits. The accused testified on his own behalf , after
an application in terms of section 174 of the CPA, for his discharge was refused
by the Court. I will now proceed to provide a summary of the evidence in this
matter.
[10] Constable Zwane, a law enforcement officer with the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan
Police Department (EMPD), worked with the accused. He testified that on 22
September 2023, he went to pick up the accused at his home, as was their
customary arrangement for commuting to work. Upon arrival, he hooted several
times, but the accused did not emerge. This was unusual, as the accused
typically responded after a single hoot. Constable Zwane then tried calling the
accused, but the call went unanswered.
[11] While he was attempting to make contact, one of the accused's neighbours
approached and informed him that they had heard gunshots coming from the
accused's house. Constable Zwane then called Constable Mkhonto to the
scene. Upon arrival, Constable Mkhonto and the neighbour jumped the wall to
access the premises, as the gates were locked. After some time, Constable
Mkhonto returned to open the gate for him. Upon entering the house, he saw
the accused lying on the floor in a pool of blood, and the deceased lyi ng on the
bed, also in a pool of blood. He testified that the room was in disarray.
[12] The next witness, Constable Ernest Mkhonto, is a law enforcement officer at
[12] The next witness, Constable Ernest Mkhonto, is a law enforcement officer at
the Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department (the “ EMPD”). He testified that
Constable Zwane called him . Upon his arrival, he jumped the wall with one of
the neighbours to access the premises. When they arrived at the room where
4
the accused was residing and where the incident occurred, the security gate
was locked, but the wooden front door was slightly ajar . They could see the
accused lying on the floor in a pool of blood. Then, the accused’s child, who
was inside, gave them the key. They opened the security gate and got inside
the room, where they saw the deceased lying on the bed in a pool of blood, and
she appeared dead as there were no signs of breathing. The witness also
testifies that the room was in disarray.
[13] The witness then took the gun, which he identified as a Glock pistol , with a
marking of the EMPD thereon, which was lying next to the accused on the
ground to safeguard it for further investigation.
[14] Constable Mkhonto provided a description to the court of the state of the room
and referred to crime scene photographs. The room was in disarray , and there
was blood everywhere. He could see that the accused was still alive, and
ambulances were called. He testified about how medical personnel arrived and
removed the child and the accused from the scene.
[15] He was asked about how many windows there were , and he said one. Mr
Rambau asked him if the window was closed; he testified that, as a police
officer, he looked for “loopholes” but confirmed that the window was closed.
[16] The next witness was Constable Sei ma, who also went to the scene and
entered the room with the other policemen. His evidence related to securing
the crime scene . He said that 3 spent cartridges were found in the room and
that he had checked thoroughly.
[17] The next witness was Warrant Officer MW Phuravhathu. He is the police
photographer who attended the scene. The witness thoroughly interviewed the
crew and assessed the crime scene. The first thing he did was to assess the
premises for signs of forced entry. He found that there was no damage to the
front door or security gate. The witness found a gun that was marked EMPD
front door or security gate. The witness found a gun that was marked EMPD
(Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department). He found 3 cartridge cases and 2
bullets or projectiles. There were two bullets on the bed. Next to the deceased
was her phone. He took photographs of the exhibits , whereafter he collected
and packaged them in marked forensic bags to be examined by the forensic
5
department. He testified that the room was in disarray , which he concluded
evinced a struggle between people that took place.
[18] He was referred to his photographs , which depicted a lot of blood in the room
and against the walls , spent bullets, a bullet hole in the ceiling, the firearm, 11
bullets which were in the firear m, and in the magazine. A firearm box was
found in the wardrobe with further bullets.
[19] The next witness, Sergeant Noko Walter Mongalo , works for the Vispoli unit at
SAPS, which attends to complaints. He also went t o the scene. His
observations were the same as the other police officers describing the crime
scene. He saw a broken plate o n the floor with rice still on it. Next to it was a
chicken drumstick.
[20] The testimony provided by the witness indicated that there was no forced entry
into the flat.
[21] The next witness was Mrs. M[…] J[…] P[...], the mother of the deceased. The
witness testified about the nature of the relationship between the accused and
the deceased. She stated that the relationship between the accused and the
deceased was very toxic. She recalled one incident where the landlord of
where the accused and his daughter were residing called her to report that the
accused was beating her daughter. She drove from Mamelodi to Tembisa
around midnight and found her daughter crying at the landlord's house. The
accused was so drunk he could not articulate why he had beaten his wife. The
issue was resolved, and the deceased forgave the accused.
[22] On another occasion, the witness received a call from her daughter stating that
the accused had kicked her and the child out of the house. The witness had to
arrange an Uber to bring her daughter and grandchild to her home. She further
emphasised the toxic nature of the relationship by describing how she once
witnessed the accused and her daughter fighting in front of her house . The
witness also testified that the accused sabotaged the deceased's job
witness also testified that the accused sabotaged the deceased's job
opportunities, as he did not want her to work.
6
[23] As the mother of deceased, she was privy to details of the relationship because
her daughter and the accused , as her daughter confided in her. She testified
that in 2023, her daughter stayed with her for two weeks after the accused
kicked her out. Her daughter had a gambling problem and had taken between
R20,000 and R25,000 of the accused's money, which she lost. During this stay,
the witness overheard a heated phone argument during which her daughter
said, "Even if you kill, your mates will also kill you." The witness assumed the
accused was threatening to kill her daughter.
[24] Regarding the day of the incident, the witness testified that a neighbour from
Tembisa called to say it appeared that the accused had killed her daughter.
When she arrived, the scene had been cordoned off. She gained access after
the police had finished their work and found her daughter dead in a pool of
blood. She was informed that her grandson had been taken to the hospital,
whom she visited the next day. At the hospital, she asked her grandson what
had happened. The child explained that after returning f rom a soccer match
and having dinner, the accused began beating his mother with his fists. He then
took his firearm, shot the deceased, shot him, and then shot himself. This
hearsay evidence was provisionally admitted on the basis that the child would
later be called to testify about what he told his grandma. G[...] P[...], the child,
later confirmed in his own testimony that he had indeed told his grandmother
that his father shot his mother and himself, whereafter he shot h imself. The
hearsay evidence of Mrs. P[...] is accordingly admitted into evidence.
[25] The next witness, Captain Lerato Makobane, is a policewoman practicing
forensic social work. She assessed the competency of G[...] P[...] (“G[...]”), who
was 5 years old when the assessment was conducted, to determine if he would
be able to testify in court. At the time of the incident, he was four years old, and
be able to testify in court. At the time of the incident, he was four years old, and
when he testified, he was 6 years old. She used age-appropriate techniques to
assess G[...]’s cognitive development, emotional development, language
development, interpretation of personal relationships, and the impact of trauma.
She found G[...] to be able to comprehend the concept of truth and lies, right
and wrong. She provided a competency report to the court, stating that the child
can testify in court but through an intermediary.
7
[26] Dr. Retief was called to testify. He is the doctor who treated the accused. He
was informed that the history of the injury the accused sustained came about
as a result of a self -inflicted gunshot wound. He assessed the wounds and
determined that surgical intervention was possible. The accused was taken to
the theatre for a procedure to repair his fractured skull and to close the scalp.
He found the presence of two retained metallic foreign bodies inside the brain
in the frontal lobe. The scalp was opened, and the foreign bodies were
removed. A week later, the accused was taken to the theatre to clean the head
wound. During this procedure, the doctor noticed a second wound between the
ear and the right eye. He testified that he could not say if it was caused by a
single injury or not. He said the injury on the right-hand side of the temple might
have been a bullet entry wound, and the major injury on the front side of the
skull was an exit wound. He suggested it might have been from the same
gunshot that penetrated and exited the head.
[27] The next witness was the accused's child, M[…] G[...] P[...] (referred to as G[...]
P[...] or the “child”). The court asked him questions to determine if he would be
a competent witness, having regard to hi s age. The court was satisfied that he
could distinguish between truth and lies , but that he was too young understand
the nature and import of taking the oath or an affirmation. The court went ahead
to admonish him to speak the truth. The court warned him to speak only the
truth as to what he himself observed a nd saw and not to testify about what
others might have told him to say . He agreed to do that. He proceeded to
deliver his evidence through an intermediary, whom the court was satisfied
could legally act as an intermediary.
[28] He then narrated to the court that on the day of the incident, they came back
from a soccer match. Then they ate, whil st eating, the deceased accidentally
from a soccer match. Then they ate, whil st eating, the deceased accidentally
broke a plate, and an argument between the accused and the deceased
ensued. The accused attacked the deceased with fists , and then he shot
“Connie”, which was a reference to his mother. The prosecutor asked the child
who shot the deceased, and the child responded that it was the accused. He
then told the court that, after the accused shot the deceased, he shot him and
then shot himself. When asked where he was when he was shot, he said
8
“inside the blanket” on the bed. He said “ V[...]” (accused) shot Connie once. He
identified the broken plate on Exhibit D, photo 102. He said the chicken
drumstick, which was on the floor , was on V[...]’s plate, as he was eating. This
caused the fight between his parents, during which they both used their fists.
[29] The witness testified that when the incident occurred, it was late at night, but
the room was illuminated by a light bulb. After the shooting, he fell asleep.
[30] He testified that the next day, the police came, and he gave them the keys to
open the “burglar” (security gate) since it was locked, and the door was slightly
open. The court also asked how many people were in the house when the
incident took place . T he witness responded by showing his fingers , indicating
that it was only 3 people. He said it was him, the deceased, and the accused.
He was asked if there were any other people in the room, and he reiterated that
it was only him, the deceased, and the accused.
[31] The witness further testified that the accused took out a gun from his trousers,
which he got “ ko maphodiseng a gage” (which means that the accused got the
gun from where he works) since he works as a police officer. The witness also
told the court that his grandmother visited him at the hospital, and he told her
what happened.
[32] During cross-examination by the defence counsel asked the witness how many
people were in the house, and the witness responded that there were 3 people.
When asked who told him to show three fingers to indicate the number of
people in the room , he said it came from him. He was asked whether he fell
asleep or not, and he said he fell asleep before his parents started fighting. The
defence then asked the witness how he could have seen the shooting being
asleep, and he responded by saying “with my eyes”. When his mother was
shot, he then covered himself with a blanket, including his head.
shot, he then covered himself with a blanket, including his head.
[33] The defence of the accused was put to the witness as follows: that the
accused will say to the court that, in fact, on the 21st of September 2023, they
went to the stadium. After they came back from the match, they ate dinner, and
after eating, they all went to sleep. When they were sleeping, the accused
heard sounds of someone jumping the wall, but he did not want to wake them
9
up. The accused heard someone opening the bathroom window and someone
opening the door. Because it was dark, he tried to reach out for his firearm on
the table, but the intruder had already taken possession of the gun. They fought
over the gun, then gunshots were fired, and he was shot in the head. He only
heard later that the deceased was shot.
[34] In re -examination, the prosecutor asked the witness about the size of the
bathroom window, and it was estimated to be 60cm in length. The court also
asked the witness at the end who shot his mother. He said it was the accused
who shot the deceased, and that there were only 3 people in the room. Which
was him, the accused and the deceased. It should be noted that later during the
trial, photos 56 and 58 in exhibit D were referred to, from which the size of the
bathroom window could be ascertained. It became common cause that there
were two burglar bars covering the opening of the window.
[35] W\O Tlou Charles Mahlare is a forensic analyst, attached to the ballistic section
of the SAPS, who confirmed his findings of the two admitted ballistic reports,
Exhibits G and H, to the court. The Glock pistol, which was found on the scene
(which became common cause to be the service pistol of the accused) , and the
two fired bullets and the three cartridges found on the scene were examined by
him. He found that the pistol was functional, and the fired cartridge cases were
fired from the Glock pistol. He could not determine if the two bullets were fired
or not, from the Glock pistol. The bullets were too damaged. At a later stage, he
again received the cartridges and fired bullet s, together with the test-fired
bullets and cartridges, but again concluded that it could not be established
whether the bullets were fired from the same firearm. The examination results
remained inconclusive as far as the bullets were concerned.
[36] The two witness statements , exhibits J and K, were handed in by consent and
[36] The two witness statements , exhibits J and K, were handed in by consent and
accepted into evidence. In the statement of Mr. Siphuma, he stated that he is a
neighbour of the accused. He returned to his home early the next morning and
saw that the front door of the accused was slightly open, but the burglar door
was locked. He was informed by another neighbour about gunshots the
previous night . He left his home but returned at about 13h15 and found a
colleague of the accused at the gate. He then jumped over t he wall and looked
10
into the room of the accused. He saw him lying in a pool of blood. He went out
of the yard but returned with another police officer. They saw the son of the
accused inside the room and obtained the keys to open the security gate from
him. The accused who was lying on the ground was moving his hand to find the
firearm. The firearm was removed by the police officer. He saw the deceased.
Ambulances were called. The son of the accused was air-lifted to the hospital.
[37] In the statement of Mr Ntshobane, he stated that on 20 September 2023, at
about 23h00, he was lying on his bed close to the room of the accused when
he heard that the burglar door of the accused’s room was closed. Thereafter ,
he heard that the occupants of the room were arguing. He then heard gunshot
wounds. He estimated about six shots. He then heard a child crying for a long
time, but later it became quite. He never went out to inspect what was
happening. When he went to work, the door of the accused was closed.
[38] The medico-legal post-mortem report of the deceased, exhibit C , contains the
findings of the pathologist Dr Fantsi. He described the cause of death to be
gunshot wounds to the head and neck. Two gunshot wounds were described. A
projectile was found on the left posterior chest.
[39] This concluded the state’s case. A discharge application was refused.
[40] The accused then testified. He began by describing the layout of the room he
shared with the deceased and their child. It was an en- suite room with a main
door and a separate bathroom door. The room and bathroom had different
windows. He explained that while the main door was the primary entrance, one
could also access the room through the bathroom window, which had a burglar
bar. The court asked if he had ever entered through this window, and he
confirmed he had, on an occasion when he had locked his keys inside.
[41] He told the court that on the day of the incident, he went to FNB Stadium with
[41] He told the court that on the day of the incident, he went to FNB Stadium with
his former wife (the deceased) and his child. The court then asked the question
of whether he was drinking or not, and he responded that he was not drinking.
After the match, they went back home, and upon arrival, his wife started
cooking, dishing up for everyone in different plates. The time was around 19:30.
They then went to sleep, and the lights were off, but the TV was not switched
11
off. As he was sleeping, he heard sounds of someone jumping the wall from the
front side of the gate. Then s omeone must have entered the room through the
bathroom window, as the person came through the bathroom door into his
room. He then woke up and tried to find out from this person what was
happening. The person then started insulting him, saying “voets ek,” and a fight
ensued between them. His wife then woke up after hearing the noise, but the
child remained sleeping. As they were fighting, shots were fi red, and he is not
sure which gun was used. The person then shot his wife, and he also shot him
on the forehead, and he lost consciousness. He testified that on the day of the
incident, no arguments arose between him and the deceased. He said the child
dropped his plate and it broke. This never gave rise to an argument. When he
was asked about why this person just came and shot him and his family, he
said, “This might have been related to work issues, since at work they
apprehend serious criminals, and there were several cases where he had to
appear as a witness”.
[42] He denied firing any shots on this day . He said he saw the face of the intruder.
The court asked the accused about the lines visible on photographs 56 and 58.
The accused said that he knows nothing about these lines.
[43] During cross-examination, the accused testified that his service firearm was on
top of the TV stand, covered in plastic. When he was confronted for leaving his
firearm exposed, he then testified that it was hidden behind the TV, covered
with plastic. When asked how the intruder could have found the firearm after
entering the room, he said that the intruder must have seen it when he rushed
towards the TV to obtain his firearm to protect himself and his family. He said
that after he heard the noise outside, he and his wife were awake. He heard
footsteps on the balcony. He said he hear d forced entry through the bathroom
footsteps on the balcony. He said he hear d forced entry through the bathroom
window. Something like irons being broken. They stayed awake listening till the
shooting took place. The time from which he heard the sound till the shooting
took place he estimated to be 8 minutes. When he saw the person for the first
time he had something like a firearm in his possession. He said when he
started wrestling with the intruder shots were fired. First towards his wife and
child then towards him. It was pointed out to him that he never previously stated
12
that he saw how this person fired shots at his child. He said he has forgotten
about this. When asked if the intruder used his own firearm or the firearm of the
accused to shoot, he said he thinks the intruder might have used his service
firearm when he was wrestling with him . He agreed that this meant that the
intruder must have had two firearms in his possession at the same time.
[44] The accused testified then that he could not use his service firearm to protect
himself as he was taught differently. He said he saw the intruder, shooting his
wife and the child and then proceeded to point the firearm at his fore head and
fired a shot. He then testified that his wife was shot first before he ran towards
the TV to obtain his firearm. He managed to obtain his firearm and cocked it
when he continued to wrestle with the intruder. Thereafter, he was shot. It was
pointed out to him that he previously said that he could not use his service
firearm to protect himself.
[45] The accused was confronted with the differences between his statement ,
exhibit L, and his testimony in court. In exhibit L, which was signed by the
accused, and handed in to court without objection, it is noted that the accused
said he was not threatened or influenced to exercise options pertaining to the
making of a statement. This statement was made to his employer to explain
what happened when he was shot. It was noted in the statement that before the
statement was handed to the interviewer, Investigator Malegase, the accused
phoned and asked his legal representative, Mr Rambau, whether he could hand
in his handwritten statement , made to his employer , the Ekurhuleni
Metropolitan Police, as his warning statement. Advice was given that he could
do so after which the statement was handed over and attached to exhibit L.
[46] In this statement attached to exhibit L, the accused wrote that he, his wife and
son peacefully went to bed. After hearing some sound “ two individuals pushed
son peacefully went to bed. After hearing some sound “ two individuals pushed
the door open and entered the room forcefully so, and one individual had a
firearm on his hand I then jumped onto him in an attempt to disarm the
individual albeit in the dark to no avail. During the scuffle, the individual fired
some shots, which I suspect that they are the ones that killed my wife and
injured myself as well as my son.”
13
[47] He testified that the version contained in exhibit L was false. He admitted that
he has lied to his employer. When confronted with his admitted lie he said he
acted under duress. It was pointed out to him that the version put to his child
differed from his version in court . It was put to the child that he only heard
afterwards that his wife was shot and killed. In his evidence he stated that he
saw how his wife was shot. He blamed Mr. Rambau for putting a wrong version.
He admitted that till today he has f ailed to open a case with the police against
the intruder. He said his child was tol d by someone to falsely implicate him. He
could not advance a reason why he would have done that. It was put to him
that the doctor testified that the wound to his forehead was in all probably, an
exit wound and not an entry wound. He said he thought that he was shot in the
forehead. He then said he does not know where he was shot.
[48] Towards the end of his testimony , he admitted that the bathroom window had
burglar bars, but he stated that a person could still climb through this window.
[49] This concluded the case for the defence.
[50] This court is fully aware of the onus in a criminal case. The state must prove
the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt . The court does not even
have to belief the version of an accused. If his version, considering all the
evidence, is reasonably possibly true , an accused would be entitled to an
acquittal.
[51] It is also trite that all the evidence pointing to the guilt or innocence of an
accused should be considered h olistically. A piecemeal analysis is helpful but
for purposed of the ultimate finding the court was weigh the merits and demerits
of the res pective versions. A court would consider the credibility of witnesses
and have regard to the probabilities. A criminal matter is not decided on the
probabilities but if a version of an accused is inherently improbable it can be
rejected on this basis.
rejected on this basis.
[52] The court in this matter is dealing with two mutually destructive versions . It is
the State’s case that the accused fired the shots which killed his wife and
injured his son. After these shots were fire he turned the firearm towards hi m
and fired a shot which did not kill him. The accused blamed an unknown
14
intruder for firing the shots. In this instance I w ill start to consider the evidence
of the accused upfront as I have concluded that the accused was not a credible
witness. Moreover, the probabilities do not support the versions of the accused.
Neither does the objective and undisputed facts.
[53] Accused is a self -confessed liar. He admitted that his statement , exhibit L,
written by himself and handed to the police as a warning statement was
untruthful. In his statement he stated that two individuals pushed the door open
and entered the room forcefully. One individual had a firearm in his hand. He
then jumped upon th is person to disarm him, but during the scuffle, this
individual fired shot which he suspected killed his wife and injured him and his
son. This is in direct contrast with his version in this c ourt that one intruder
came through the bathroom window and shot his wife , his son and him. His
explanation for the difference was that he acted under duress. This explanation
made no sense whatsoever. He wrote this statement and with the approval of
his legal representative it was handed to the police. The only reasonable
inference which can be drawn from the facts is that he , at some unknown
stage, realized that he could not rely on this version as there was no evidence
of forced entry into his room . Also, that there exist no independent and
acceptable evidence that any other firearm was used during the incident. Mr
Rambau’s submission that only 3 cartridges were found whilst at least 5 or 6
shots were fired holds no water. The police investigators could have missed
cartridges which could have ended any where in this room , which room was in
total disarray after the shooting. No cartridges evidencing that a shot or shots
were fired by a further firearm was afterwards found in room.
[54] The question which could validly be asked is why the accused gave a false
version to his employer and the police? The allegation of duress first surfaced
version to his employer and the police? The allegation of duress first surfaced
during the cross- examination of the accused. It is a clear fabrication
considering that his statement was introduced in evidence without objection
and by consent.
[55] Even his version during his testimony in court differed materially from his
version put to his child by Mr. Ra mbau. In court, he said that he saw how his
wife and child were shot by the intruder. This is in direct contrast with his
15
version put to his child, to the effect that he only found out later, in hospital, that
his wife and child were shot.
[56] His version during his own testimony differed . This related to the sequence of
events as to when the scuffle for his service firearm took place. He was
inconsistent concerning the issue whether he first managed to get hold of his
firearm or whether the intruder got hold of it first.
[57] There were f urther significant inconsistencies in his version. When his version
was put to his child, he claimed the deceased and child were asleep and heard
nothing. In his testimony, he stated the deceased was awake and she heard
everything, even asking him to investigate the cause of noise.
[58] He initially stated he was unsure which gun was used but then testified that he
and the intruder fought over his own service firearm.
[59] His version is also inherently improbable. If he heard that someone was forcing
his way into his room , certainly, he, as a police officer, would have fetched his
firearm. If there was in fact an intruder , why would this person, after the
shooting, again force hi s way out through the small bathroom window , which
had a small opening between the burglar bars . The accused only belatedly
conceded that the bathroom window was secured by burglar bars, after he was
confronted with photos. The key for the burglar gate was in the flat. His whole
unclear explanation of how the intruder , who according to him , arrived with his
own firearm, got hold of his service pistol is unclear and far-fetched. The
accused’s, changed version, was that this firearm was hidden behind the TV
with a plastic. How would the intruder have known this? On one of his versions
the intruder was not yet in possession of the service firearm of the accused
when he fired the shots that killed deceased and injured his son. This evidence
suggested that another firearm was used to kill the deceased.
suggested that another firearm was used to kill the deceased.
[60] The evidence of the ballistic expert W/O Mahlare does not support the version
of the accused that there was a further firearm on the scene when the shooting
took place. The 3 cartridges that were found on the scene were all fired from
the service pistol of the accused. The projectiles found on the scene were too
damaged to arrive at any conclusive findings. The fact that there was an
16
indication that a bullet caused a hole in the ceiling does not mean that this hole
was caused by a shot that was fired into the ceiling. It could have been caused
by a fragment of any one of the bullets that were fired.
[61] Above all the question can rightly be asked, why his own child would falsely
accused him, if in fact, an intruded fired the shots that killed the deceased and
injured the child.
[62] This court finds that the accused was not a credible witness and that his
version could be rejected as false beyond reasonable doubt . This , however,
does not mean that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt
of the accused on the counts he was charged with . This Court still must
consider this having regard to all credible evidence.
[63] The State’s case as to what transpired in that room on the fateful evening is
primarily premised on the version of the child, G[...] P[...]. If his evidence is
accepted, the State has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In my
view, even without placing any reliance on the testimony of the child, as to who
fired the shots, the circumstantial evidence allows for an inference to be drawn
that the accused was the person who fired the shots. I will , however, first
consider the veracity of the evidence of the State witnesses.
[64] The evidence of the EMPD officers who went to the room of the accused after
the shooting can be accepted as truthful. These witnesses corroborated each
other and had no motive to lie. They were instrumental in obtaining medical
help for the accused. The witnesses, including Mr. Noko Mungalo, testified that
there were no signs of forced entry into the room. The burglar gate was locked.
Once in the room, they could see there were signs of a struggle, and there was
blood everywhere.
[65] The mother of the deceased, Mrs. P[...], was a credible witness in my view. Her
evidence of the toxic relationship between the accused and the deceased was
evidence of the toxic relationship between the accused and the deceased was
not shown to be false . The accused, on previous occasions, when intoxicated,
assaulted her daughter . She testified that her daughter confided in her and
even came to stay with her for two weeks shortly before she was killed. From
this testimony, it is evident that the accused was an abusive partner. Her
17
evidence as to what G[...] P[...] told her when she visited the hospital on the day
after the shooting could not be criticized and is accepted. Her evidence
concerning the toxic relationship between the deceased and the accused was
supported by an independent witness , Mr Lindani N tsohane. In his statement ,
he said that at about 23h00 he heard a heated argument between two people
in the flat close to his. Thereafter , he heard gunshots being fired. He was too
scared to investigate. This version of this independent witness adds a final nail
in the coffin of the version of the accused that they peacefully went to bed
before they were surprised by an intruder.
[66] The evidence of G[...] P[...] should be considered by giving due recognition to
the fact that he was only 4 years old when the incident happened and six years
old when he testified. He is a single, youthful witness. A cautionary approach is
called for. He was found to be a competent witness by Captain Mokobane and
the court. During his testimony, he confidently related his version by answering
the questions posed to him satisfactorily and properly. The suggestion that he
was asleep or totally covered with blankets throughout the shooting holds no
water. It is, in any event, highly improbable that he would have remained asleep
amidst a heated argument between his parents , where fist blows were
exchanged. A dinner plate was broken. He testified that the breaking of this
plate triggered the argument. There is no reason why he would have fabricated
this evidence, bearing in mind that the photos of the crime scene depicted a
broken plate with food lying on the ground.
[67] Even though the child struggled to answer some questions accurately, he never
deviated from his version as to who was present in the room and who fired the
shots. When questions were simplified, the child was able to answer openly
and frankly . From the evidence provided by the child, there were no
and frankly . From the evidence provided by the child, there were no
contradictions. The child was adamant that the accused was the one who shot
the deceased and himself. He used his fingers to indicate how many people
were in the room. It was argued that this clearly show ed he was coached on
what to say. I disagree. I never gained the impression that the child was
coached. Children, and even adults, use their fingers to indicate figures. When
the defence put to the child that some other intruder shot them, he disputed that
18
and reiterated that the accused is the one who shot the three of them. Any
suggestion that his version was an after -the-fact concoction is dispelled if the
evidence of Mrs. P[...] is considered. She testified that G[...] P[...], during her
first visit to him in the hospital, a day after the incident, informed her that the
accused was the shooter. To suggest that his grandmother would have told him
on the day after the shooting to lie and to blame his innocent father, whilst the
true shooter was a third party, is highly improbable.
[68] In Woji v Santam Insurance Co Ltd, 1 the court remarked as follows relating to
the evidence of a young witness:
“ The question which the trial court must ask itself is whether the young witness’
evidence is trustworthy. Trustworthines s as is pointed out by Wigmore in his
Code of Evidence para 568 at 128, depends on factors such as the child's power
of observation, his power of recollection, and his power of narration on the
specific matter to be testified. In each instance the capacity of the particular child
is to be investigated. His capacity of observation will depend on whether he
appears “intelligent enough to observe”. Whether he has the capacity of
recollection will depend again on whether he has sufficient years of discretion “to
remember what occurs,” while the capacity of narration or communication raises
the question whether the child has “the capacity to understand the question put,
and to frame and express intelligent answers…”
This same principle was reiterated in the case of S v V , where the court stated
that “ The trial court should, in each case, satisfy itself as to the child’s
competence to give evidence and, in doing so, should have regard to the child’s
age, intelligence and ability to distinguish between the truth and the truth”.
2
[69] This court was satisfied that G[...] P[...] satisfied this test set in Woij supra. He
testified about his own parents and not strangers. A y oung child, in my view,
testified about his own parents and not strangers. A y oung child, in my view,
will be able to observe when his parents argue and assault each other. He
knew his father carried a work firearm and it was expected of him, as he did, to
have observed who fired the shots that killed his mother and injured hi m and
his father. Even on the version of the accused, the T V was on during the
incident. This would have created sufficient light to observe who fired the shots.
1 Woji V Santam Insurance Co Ltd 1981 (1) SA 1020 (A) at 1028 A-D.
2 S v V 2000 (1) SACR 453 (SCA).
19
[70] The evidence of G[...] P[...] was satisfactory on all the material issues and is
accepted by this court. Moreover, his evidence was corroborated by his
grandmother, other witnesses, and the circumstantial evidence.
[71] As found hereinbefore, the court is satisfied even if the evidence of G[...] P[...]
is left out of the equation, that the state proved the case against the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt. As already found, the evidence of the accused
was not credible and therefore not reliable. The court can only place reliance on
those parts of the accused’s evidence which has become common cause. If the
cumulative effect of the following facts and circumstances are considered, the
only reasonable inference to be drawn from these facts is that the accused fired
all the shots in the room. There was independent evidence of an heated
argument between the accused and the deceased; a plate was broken and the
entire room was found to be in disarray; shortly after the argument shots were
heard; there was evidence of a toxic relationship between the accused and the
deceased; there was evidence of a previous physical attack by the accused on
the deceased; a previous cellular phone conversation between the deceased
and the accused was overheard by Mrs. P[...] during which the decease d said
that “if the accused was going to kill her his colleagues would sort him out ”;
there were no signs of forced entry into the flat despite the evidence of the
accused that he heard metal sounds when the alleged perpetrator gained
access through the bathroom window ; the accused, a police officer had a
firearm available , but despite this , he never used this firearm to defend his
family. The key for the burglar gate was in the room and the burglar gate
remained locked until it was opened the day after the shooting by the child. The
size of the bathroom window through which an intruder could gain entry into the
room was very small , and it could not have been easy to exit through this
room was very small , and it could not have been easy to exit through this
window. The firearm of the accused was not taken by the intruder, nor was any
items stolen. The wounds suffered by the deceased indicated that the shooter
took proper aim and shot to kill. The precision with which the shots hit the
deceased and the accused is rather indicative of well- aimed shots than being
fired during a scuffle to gain control over a firearm. The ballistic evidence
indicated that only the firearm of the accused was used to fire shots.
20
[72] It is trite that once a court is faced with circumstantial evidence, it naturally
follows that a court could draw inferences from the evidence presented. It was
held in S v Blom3 as follows:
“In reasoning by inference, there are two cardinal rules of logic which cannot be
ignored: (1) The inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the
proved facts. If it is not, the inference cannot be drawn. (2) The proved facts
should be such that they exclude every reasonable inference from them save the
one sought to be drawn. If they do not exclude other reasonable inferences, then
there must be doubt whether the inference sought to be drawn is correct.”
[73] Circumstantial evidence from which the only reasonable inference could be
drawn is often found in a whole range of independent circumstances, all giving
rise to the same conclusion. The court must consider all these circumstances
as a whole and not assess each in isolation. In S v De Villiers 4 it was held as
follows:
“The court must not take each circumstance separately and give the accused the
benefit of any reasonable doubt as to the inference to be drawn from each one so
taken. It must carefully weigh the cumulative effect of all of them together, and it
is only after it has done so that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any
reasonable doubt which it may have as to whether the inference of guilt is the
only inference which can reasonably be drawn. To put the matter in another way,
the Crown must satisfy the court, not that each separate fact is inconsistent with
the innocence of the accused, but that the evidence as a whole is beyond
reasonable doubt inconsistent with such innocence.”
[74] In De Villiers supra at 508, it was further explained as follows:
“…even two particles of circumstantial evidence- though taken by itself weigh but
as a feather - join them together, you find them pressing on the delinquent with
the weight of a milestone…”
the weight of a milestone…”
[75] In this case, the cumulative effect of the circumstances of this matter weighs
so heavily against the accused that the court could, beyond a reasonable
doubt, conclude that the accused is the only person who fired these shots.
3 1939 AD 188 at 202
4 1944 AD 493 at 508-509
21
[76] Having considered the evidence in its totality, it is the conclusion of this court
that the accused, Mr. V[...] N[...], is guilty , beyond a reasonable doubt , of the
murder of the deceased and the attempted murder of his child. This conclusion
is compelled by the direct and circumstantial evidence, which overwhelmingly
points to the accused as the perpetrator . The court finds that the accused and
the deceased, during or after dinner, engaged in an argument which ended in a
physical altercation between them. The accused thereupon took his service
firearm and shot the deceased and his son. Thereafter, he attempted to take
his own life but was unsuccessful.
[77] The accused was charged with murder and attempted murder , read with the
provisions of section 51(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
Murder or attempted murder, which was planned or pre- meditated, falls within
the purview of this section. In my view , that State has failed to prove planning
and/or pre-meditation.
[78] The following order is made:
1. The accused is convicted on count 1, read with the provisions of section
51(2) of the General Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, and
2. The accused is convicted on count 2 , read with the provisions of section
51(2) of the General Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
___________________________
R. STRYDOM
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
22
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Delivered on: 06 November 2025
Appearances:
For The State: Adv. N. Zuma
Instructed by: The National Prosecuting Authority
For the Accused: Mr. T. Rambau
Instructed by: Rambau Attorneys