About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
>>
1995
>>
[1995] ZASCA 91
|
|
S v Mthembu (576/94) [1995] ZASCA 91 (11 September 1995)
Case No 576/94
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION)
In the matter between:
THEMBA SAM MTHEMBU Appellant
and
THE STATE Respondent
Coram: NESTADT, SCHUTZ JJA et SCOTT AJA
Date heard: 8 September 1995
Date delivered: 11 September 1995
JUDGMENT NESTADT. JA
:
At about 6 pm on 17 July 1993 three men entered a
butchery in Tembisa. Having robbed and fatally shot the owner they
escaped.
2
These events led to the appellant being charged and convicted in the
Witwatersrand Local Division on four counts viz murder, robbery
(with
aggravating circumstances), unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful
possession of ammunition. The State case was that
the appellant was one of the
robbers and had in fact fired the shots that killed the deceased. The
appellant's alibi defence having
been rejected, he was convicted on all four
counts. An effective sentence of 20 years imprisonment was imposed. He appeals
now against
his convictions.
The State case rested on the evidence of an eye-witness, namely Kenneth
Mohapi. He was standing outside the butchery when the robbery
took place. He
testified as to what happened. At an identification parade held on 23 August
1993 he pointed out the
3
appellant as one of the gang and in particular as the person who shot the
deceased.
The issue to be determined is whether the trial court was correct in finding
that Mohapi's identification of the appellant could sufficiently
be relied on to
sustain the convictions in the face of the appellant's denial that he was on the
scene. There are a number of factors
in favour of an affirmative answer. Subject
to what I say later, he had a fair opportunity to observe what happened and to
identify
the person who shot the deceased. The lighting was good. The three
robbers passed close to where he was standing. He said he looked
at their faces
and could see them clearly. He was paying attention to them.
The factors referred to must not be underestimated.
4
There is also the consideration that whereas Mohapi was found
to be
a satisfactory witness, the appellant did not create a
favourable
impression with the trial court. On the other hand, however,
the
following must be borne in mind. As regards the identification of
the
appellant, Mohapi was a single witness. So it was necessary
to
approach his evidence with caution especially seeing that we
are
dealing with a case of identification of a person whom Mohapi
had
never seen before. There were no particular features of the
appellant
that he relied on in order to identify him. The identification
parade
was held more than a month after the incident. Mohapi says that
he
was able to observe the appellant when the gang arrived on the
scene
and when they left. On the latter occasion it must have been but
for
a brief moment; they were then running away; and at this stage
5
Mohapi was in a state of shock. On the former occasion ie as
the
appellant and the other two walked towards the deceased as he stood
at
the door of the premises, there was no particular reason for
Mohapi to then
take notice of them. And at this stage his attention
was, on his own
testimony, divided. He says he was looking at all
three assailants and their
clothing. There was, incidentally, no
independent evidence of what the
appellant wore on the night in
question or that he possessed clothing of the kind referred to
by
Mohapi. According to a second State witness (who could not
identify the
appellant) the person who fired the shots had a
"wolmus...oor sy gesig
getrek". The result was that he could not see
him clearly. This evidence is
difficult to reconcile with Mohapi's
evidence that he could see the
appellant's face; nor does Mohapi
6
make any mention of the appellant having worn a cap of any kind. Another
problem for the State is the evidence that another bystander
pointed out someone
else at the identification parade as the person who fired the shots. Finally, I
am not convinced of the cogency
of the reasons of the trial court for accepting
Mohapi's identification and rejecting the appellant's defence. No particular
justification
is given for having done this. Nor am I impressed by the criticism
of the appellant's evidence (arising, in the main, from him having
made
contradictory statements concerning his addresses). On the contrary, the
appellant's evidence does not read badly.
In my opinion the cumulative effect of what I have stated leads me to the
conclusion that this was a case where the trial court should
have had a
reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
7
appellant on all four counts. He should therefore have been acquitted.
The appeal succeeds. The convictions and sentences of the appellant are set
aside.
H H Nestadt
Judge of Appeal
Schutz, JA )
) Concur Scott AJA, )