R v Matobo (CRI/T 18 of 93) [1994] LSCA 157 (14 October 1994)

CRI/T/18/93 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter between: REX V PITSO MATOBO JUDGMENT Delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice W. C. M. Maqutu on the 14th day of October, 1994. The Accused is charged with the crime of murder "In that upon or about the 17th day of January, 1990 and at or near Malumeng in the district of Maseru, the said accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill one MOREBOLI PHAKOE KAMO." The Accused had initially got bail in July, 1990 but it appears some problems arose that led to his being re-arrested. The Preparatory Examination was completed on the 15th October, 1992 and Accused was committed to the High Court for trial. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr. Mohapi appeared for the Crown and Mr. Mafantiri represented the Accused pro-deo. P. W.1 Ntja Posholi told the Court that he was the chief of the village in which Deceased lived. Deceased Moreboli Phakoe Kamo, whose death is the subject of this trial was the lover of one Ntšehiseng. Ntšehiseng (now deceased) was the sister of P. W. I. The late Moreboli Phakoe Kamo, known to P. W.1 simply as Rampe Phakoe, lived with P. W.1's sister Ntšehiseng as husband and wife. Deceased Rampe Phakoe came from a different village. One day while P. W.1 was sleeping Ntšehiseng brought an urgent report to the effect that Rampe Phakoe (the Deceased had been assaulted). Ntšehiseng refused to name the Deceased's assailant. She said she was scared to tell who the assailant was. At the time of the report Ntšehiseng was not sure whether Rampe Phakoe was still alive. P. W.1 called people to where Rampe Phakoe was and found him dead. Rampe Phakoe had a wound between the head and the shoulders. There was a lot of blood where Deceased had fallen. Under cross-examination P. W.1 said Ntšehiseng used to tell him who her lovers were although she was already a married woman. P. W.2 Makoae Phakoe had his deposition at the Preparatory Examination read into the record by consent of both the Crown and the Defence. P. W.2 identified the late Moreboli Phakoe Kamo, the Deceased to the medical officer before a post-mortem was conducted. P. W.2 was the Deceased's cousin. According to him Deceased had an open wound at the side of the neck. P. W.3 Lenka Kamo had his deposition at the Preparatory Examination admitted by consent of the Defence and the Crown. P. W.3 was Deceased's brother. He only describes the fact that Deceased was lying on his back and he had an open wound on the neck. He and the police conveyed the body at the mortuary and it suffered no injuries on the way to the mortuary. The next witness was P. W.4 Leabua Leluina who presently lives at the Central Prison. Accused lives at Majakaneng while he P. W.4 lived at Malumeng. The events he testified about occurred four years and some months before August 1994. He estimated the year to have been 1988. P . W .4 s a ys a r o u nd p . m. A c c u s ed a nd N t š e h i s e ng w e re d r i n k i ng b e er at t he h o me of M a t l a l e n g. T h ey w e re f o ur p a c es f r om h i m. N t š e h i s e ng i n t r o d u c ed A c c u s ed as h er b o y - f r i e n d. Ntšehiseng a nd P . W .4 a re c o u s i ns in that N t š e h i s e n g 's f a t h er is t he e l d er b r o t h er of t he f a t h er of P . W . 4. L a t er on P . W .4 w e nt h o m e. W h en Ntšehiseng c a me to t he h o me of P . W .4 in o r d er to a sk t he f a t h er of P . W .4 to a l l ow P . W .4 to t a ke Ntšehiseng h o m e, a;; it w as l a te in t he e v e n i n g, P . W . 4 's f a t h er a g r e ed a nd P . W .4 t o ok N t š e h i s e ng h o m e. On t he w ay t h ey w e re j o i n ed by t he A c c u s e d. W h en P . W .4 w a n t ed to go b a ck A c c u s ed s a id he w o u ld n ot go a ll t he w ay to t he h o me of N t š e h i s e n g, P . W .4 w i th N t š e h i s e ng p a r t ed w i th A c c u s ed at t he v i l l a ge of M a h o o a n a. P . W. 4 t o ok N t š e h i s e ng h o m e. A f t er t h ey h ad g ot i n to t he h o u se of N t š e h i s e n g, s o me o ne k n o c k e d. W h en N t š e h i s e ng a s k ed w ho w as k n o c k i n g, t he p e r s on s a id " it is m e" He i d e n t i f i ed t he p e r s on by v o i c e. A f t er t h at N t š e h i s e ng o p e n ed t he d o o r. P . W .4 t h en h e a rd f o o t s t e ps o u t s i d e. N t š e h i s e ng p e e p ed o u t s i de a nd s a id p e o p le w e re k i l l i ng e a ch o t h er o u t s i d e. I ' . W .4 w e nt o u t s i de a nd f o u nd t wo p e o p le h o l d i ng e a ch o t h er o u t s i de t he h o u s e. P . W .4 s a ys he i d e n t i f i ed D e c e a s e d, he s h o ne a t o r ch at t h em a nd t h ey m o v ed b e h i nd the h o u s e. D e c e a s ed w as a p e r s on k n o wn to h i m. P . W .4 s a ys he o n ly r e c o g n i s ed t h at it w as t he A c c u s ed w ho /... w ay f i g h t i ng w i th D e c e a s ed w h en A c c u s ed p u s h ed D e c e a s ed a w ay a nd r an a w a y. P . W .4 t r i ed to t a lk to D e c e a s ed hut. D e c e a s ed s a id n o t h i n g. He n o t i c ed D e c e a s ed h ad a b ad i n j u ry on t he n e c k. S o me d a ys l a t er A c c u s ed m et P . W .4 at a v i l l a ge c a l l ed T h i b et l a. In P . W . 4 's v i ew A c c u s ed d id n ot d i f f e r e n t i a te b e t w e en h im a nd P . W . 4 's e l d er b r o t h e r. He t o ld P . W .4 he w o u ld l i ke to m e et L e a b u a, m e a n i ng P . W .4 w h om A c c u s ed d id n ot k n ow v e ry w e l l. At. M a f e t e ng P r i s on P . W .4 m et A c c u s ed a nd t h ey t a l k e d. A c c u s ed s a id P. W.4 s h o u ld s ay he k n o ws n o t h i n g. T h is w as in 1992. P . W .4 h ad f o u nd A c c u s ed a l r e a dy in p r i s o n. P . W .4 s a ys he a nd Ntšehiseng are d e s c e n d a n ts of L e l u m a. P . W .4 s a ys Ntšehiseng h ad n e v er t o ld P . W .4 h er l o ve a f f a i rs u n t i l, t h at d a y. U n d er c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on P . W .4 s a ys s he s at d o wn in N t š e h i s e n g 's h o u se in o r d er to g et r e f r e s h m e n t s. P . W .4 e v i d e n ce is n ot in m a ny r e s p e c ts similar to w h at he s a id b e f o re t he M a g i s t r a te on h ow he i d e n t i f i ed t he p e o p le w ho w e re l i g h t i n g. P . W .4 e x p l a i ns t h is a w ay by s a y i ng t h e se d i f f e r e n c es a re t he r e s u lt of t he w ay h is e v i d e n ce in c h i ef w as l ed by t he P u b l ic P r o s e c u t or at t he M a g i s t r a t e 's C o u r t. He a l so s a ys he d id n ot /... s ay a l ot b e c a u se he w as s c a r e d. B e f o re t h is C o u rt P . W .4 s a ys N t š e h i s e ng a nd D e c e a s ed w e re l o v e rs w h en b e f o re the M a g i s t r a te P . W .4 s a id he is n ot s u r e. P. W.1 d o es n ot s t a te t h at P . W .4 w as p r e s e nt w h en N t š e h i s e ng m a de a r e p o r t. T h is P . W .4 c a n n ot e x p l a i n. He o n ly b e l i e v es P . W .1 m a de a m i s t a k e. P . W .4 s a ys N t š e h i s e ng w ho is h is c o u s i n / s i s t er is a m a r r i ed w o m an a nd is a w i d o w. T o w a r ds t he e nd of t he c r o s s- e x a m i n a t i on P . W .4 s p e a ks of A c c u s ed h a v i ng h ad a s h i n i ng o b j e ct in h is h a nd w h en he s h o ne a t o r ch at h i m. T h is f a ct w as n ot d i s c l o s ed to t he p o l i ce b e c a u se in P . W . 4 's v i ew it w as n ot i m p o r t a n t, f u r t h e r m o re t he p o l i ce o f f i c er d id n ot a sk P . W .4 w h at A c c u s ed h ad in h is h a n d, P . W .4 d e n i es he c o u ld be D e c e a s e d 's k i l l e r. U n d er r e - e x a m i n a t i on P . W .4 s a ys he is t he o ne w ho r e p o r t ed to P. W.1 of t he c o n d i t i on of D e c e a s ed w h i le N t š e h i s e ng w as w i th h er g r a n d m o t h e r. T he C r o wn t h en c a l l ed P . W .5 M a m a h l e l e be M a k a ra w ho r e s i d es at T h a b a n e n g, M a f e t e n g. P. W.6 is r e l a t ed to t he A c c u s ed by m a r r i a g e. It is t he h u s b a nd of P . W .5 w ho is t he b l o od r e l a t i on of the A c c u s e d, b e c a u se A c c u s e d 's m o t h er is t he s i s t er of t he h u s b a nd of P . W . 5. P. W.5 s a ys t he d ay she c a me f r om M p h a r a ne s he /... f o u nd A c c u s ed at h er h o m e. A c c u s ed t o ld h er t h at he h ad c o me to t he h o me of P . W .5 b e c a u se he h ad k i l l ed R a m pe at T h a b a na M o r e n a. P . W .5 w as so s h o c k ed t h at she w e nt s t r a i g ht to t he p o l i c e. T he p o l i ce c a me a nd a r r e s t ed A c c u s ed w ho w as s t i ll at t he h o me of P . W . 5. P . W .5 s a id s he h ad n ot a s k ed A c c u s ed a ny q u e s t i o ns w h en he v o l u n t e e r ed t h is i n f o r m a t i o n. P . W . 5 's o r i g i n al h o me w as at T h a b a na M o r e na b ut s he a nd h er h u s b a nd h ad r e m o v ed f r om t h e re a nd n ow r e s i d ed at T h a b a n e n g, M a f e t e n g. A l t h o u gh P . W .5 k n ew t he l a te R a m pe ( t he D e c e a s e d) he d id n ot k n ow at t he t i me A c c u s ed t o ld h er t h at D e c e a s ed w as d e a d. P . W .5 s a id s he h ad n e v er c l a s h ed w i th D e c e a s e d. C r o s s - e x a m i n ed P . W .5 s a id she l i k ed t he A c c u s ed v e ry m u ch b e c a u se ho is h er n e p h e w. P . W .5 w as n ot in a p o s i t i on to d e ny t h at on t he 1 7 th J a n u a r y, 1 9 9 0, A c c u s ed w as a l r e a dy at t he h o me of P . W .5 at T h a b a n e ng b e c a u se s he s p e n t, s e v e r al d a ys at M p h a r a n e. A l t h o u gh s he k n ew R a m pe ( D e c e a s e d) P . W .5 s a id s he w as n ot u s ed to D e c e a s e d. P . W .5 s a id s he r u s h ed to the p o l i ce to t e ll t h em to c o me a nd g et A c c u s ed b e c a u se s he d id n ot w a nt if to a p p e ar as if s he h id t he A c c u s e d. P . W .6 w as t he n e xt w i t n e s s. He s a ys A c c u s ed w as p l a y i ng a g a me c a l l ed " M o r a h a r a b a" in t he v i l l a ge of P . W .6 w h en he w e nt a nd /.... a s k ed h im w h at h is n a me w a s. He d id t h is b e c a u se A c c u s ed w as t he o n ly o ne he d id n ot k n ow in that g r o u p. P . W .6 is t he h e a d m an of t he v i l l a g e. D e c e a s ed w ho w as Ntšehiseng's l o v er a nd c o h a b i t ed w i th Ntšehiseng g a ve h im a r e p o r t. As a r e s u lt of t he r e p o rt he w e nt to L i p o n e h o n g 's d r i n k i ng p l a ce a nd t a l k ed w i th h i m. N t š e h i s e ng a nd M a t s e l a n e, t he w i fe of L i p o n c h o n g. L a t er t h at e v e n i ng Ntšehiseng c a me to a sk P . W .6 to a sk t he s on of P. W.6 to e s c o rt h er h o m e. P . W .6 a s k ed h is y o u n g er b r o t h e r 's s on to t a ke N t š e h i s e ng h o m e. T he f o l l o w i ng d ay he l e a r nt of t he d e a th of t he D e c e a s e d. U n d er c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on P . W .6 s a ys A c c u s ed t o ld h im h is n a me w as P i t s o. T h is w as on 1 7 th J a n u a r y, 1 9 9 0. P i t so is P i t so M a t o bo t he A c c u s e d. On 2 4 / 8 / 92 w h en P . W .6 m a de a s t a t e m e nt b e f o re a m a g i s t r a te he h ad s a id he r e a l ly d o es n ot k n ow t he A c c u s ed e x c e pt w h at he f o u nd o ut f r om t he A c c u s e d. P. W.6 s a id he c a n n ot d e ny t h at on t he 17 th J a n u a r y, 1 9 90 A c c u s ed w as at T h a b a n e n g, Ha S e m p e, M a f e t e ng b e c a u se he d o es n ot k n o w. P . W .6 s a id he s aw t he A c c u s ed f or the f i r st t i me t h at d a y. P . W .7 D e t e c t i ve S e r g e a nt R a m o k e pa s a ys he w e nt to T h a b a n e ng a:; a r e s u lt of i n f o r m a t i on g i v en a nd a r r e s t ed A c c u s ed at the h o me of P . W .5 M a m a h l e l e be M a k a r a. It w as on t he 2 5 th J a n u a r y, 1 9 9 0. /...... He h ad a l so g o ne to c o l l e ct the b o dy of D e c e a s ed on 1 8 th J a n u a r y, 1 9 9 0. He f o u nd a d e ep w o u nd b e h i nd D e c e a s e d 's l e ft e a r. A c c u s ed h ad g i v en h im a b r o wn O k a pi k n i fe E x h i b it 1. U n d er c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on P . W .7 w as u n a b le to s ay w h e t h er or n ot t he A c c u s ed h a n d ed t he k n i fe to h im or P . W .7 t o ok it f r om t he t a b le w h e re A c c u s ed w as c u t t i ng v e g e t a b l e s. A ll he c o u ld s ay w as t h at A c c u s ed g a ve h im t he k n i f e. He d o es n ot k n ow w h e re t he A c c u s ed l o ok t he k n i fe f r o m. T he M e d i c a l, e v i d e n ce to t he e f f e ct t h at D e c e a s ed d i ed f r om i n t r a - c r a n i al h a e m o r r h a ge w as a d m i t t ed by c o n s e n t. T h e re w as a c c o r d i ng to m e d i c al e v i d e n ce a s k u ll f r a c t u re on t he l o ft r e t r o - a u r i c u l ar p o r t i on of t he h e a d. C o u n s el f or A c c u s ed i n d i c a t ed t h at he w i s h ed to a p p ly f or t he d i s c h a r ge of t he A c c u s e d. I t o ld C o u n s el f or t he A c c u s ed t h at w i th the e v i d e n ce on r e c o rd I w o u ld n ot be a b le to g r a nt t he a p p l i c a t i o n. A c c u s e d 's C o u n s el c l o s ed t he c a se f or t he A c c u s e d. W h en in t e r ms of Section (3) of t he C r i m i n al P r o c e d u re a nd E v i d e n ce A c t. 1 9 81 an a p p l i c a t i on f or t he d i s c h a r ge of t he A c c u s ed is m a d e, it is b e c a u se in t he v i ew of a p p l i c a nt t he C r o wn has n ot m a de a prima f a c ie c a s e. In o t h er w o r ds t he A c c u s ed as /... the a p p l i c a nt is s a y i ng that at the c l o se of the p r o s e c u t i on c a s e, the C r o wn h as f a i l ed to p r e s e nt e v i d e n ce u p on w h i ch a r e a s o n a b le c o u rt m i g ht c o n v i c t. Vide R v Herholdt & O rs 1 9 56 (2) SA 7 2 2. M a p e t la C. J. in M a t s o b a ne P u t s oa v Rex 1 9 7 4 - 75 LLR 20] at p a ge 2 02 BC a g r e ed w i th S o u th A f r i c an a u t h o r i t i es w h i c h, in a n u t s h e ll s t a te that "when considering an application for the discharge of an accused person at the close of the Crown case, the test which the Court should apply is whether there is on record evidence on which a reasonable man acting carefully might - not should - convict." In o t h er w o r ds the C o u rt at this s t a ge is not g o i ng f u l ly i n to the m e r i ts and d o es not f u l ly c o n s i d er q u e s t i o ns of c r e d i b i l i t y. In Rex v K r i t z i n g er a nd O t h e rs 1 9 52 ( 2) SA 401 at 406 R o p er J. d e a l i ng w i th the e x e r c i se of the j u d g e 's d i s c r e t i on to d i s c h a r ge the a c c u s ed s a i d: He is quite entitled to refuse to discharge if he considers there is a possibility that the case for the Crown may be strengthened by evidence emerging during the course of the defence." In my v i ew t h is p a s s a ge is o p en to m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i on b e c a u se the C o u rt is not e n t i t l ed to e x p e ct t he A c c u s ed to b u i ld the c a se for /... t he C r o w n. Put at i ts l o w e st a ll t he C o u rt h as to d e t e r m i ne is w h e t h er t h em is a ny e v i d e n ce on r e c o r d. If t h e re is n o ne in my v i ew t he C o u rt is o b l i g ed to a c q u it t he A c c u s ed s t r a i g ht a w a y. It is o n ly in s o me b r i ef a nd c u r s o ry a s s e s s m e nt of t he q u a l i ty of t he e v i d e n ce h as to be m a de t h at t he d i s c r e t i on of t he C o u rt c o m es i n to p l a y. If t he C o u rt f e e ls t h e re is s o me e v i d e n ce b ut its q u a l i ty is of s u ch a n a t u re t h at p r o c e e d i ng f u r t h er w o u ld be a w a s te of t he C o u r t 's t i me a nd t he A c c u s e d 's m o n ey w i th no p o s s i b i l i ty of c o n v i c t i on in s i g ht t h en t he C o u rt m i g ht d e c i de to d i s c h a r ge t he A c c u s ed s t r a i g ht a w a y. If t he C o u rt c a n n ot s ee i ts w ay c l e ar at t h at s t a ge it m i g ht f e el o b l i g ed to r e f u se t he A c c u s e d 's a p p l i c a t i on f or d i s c h a r g e. N e v e r t h e l e ss as M a p e t la C . J. in M a t s o b a ne P u t s oa & O r s. v Rex at p a ge 2 03 a d d e d: be founded " T he exercise of the d i s c r e t i on vested in a judge relevant must considerations and unless such considerations exist the discretion should ordinarily be exercised in favour of the accused." proper upon and T h e se c i r c u m s t a n c es w h i ch s h o u ld be t a k en i n to a c c o u nt B e k k er J. in R v H e r h o l dt & O r s. ( s u p r a) at 7 23 c o u ld n ot m e n t i on in d e t a il s a ve to s a y: is of c o u r s e, beyond " It in a particular case the attendant c i r c u m s t a n c e s, w h i ch 1 do not propose to c i r c u m s c r i be or d e f i n e, might be question that /... such that a f a i l u re of j u s t i ce could p o s s i b ly result if the a c c u s ed w e re d i s c h a r g ed at the c l o se of the case for the prosecution." C o t r an C . J. in Rex v Teboho T. R a m o k a t s a n e, 1 9 78 L LR 70 at s u c c i n c t ly put the m a t t er w h en he s a id : e m b a rk " t he c o u r t s, it h as been h e l d, s h o u ld not at this of the s t a g e, c r e d i b i l i ty and s h o u ld leave the q u e s t i on in a b e y a n ce until the d e f e n ce has c l o s ed its case and then w e i gh the two t o g e t h e r ." a s s e s s m e nt final upon This w as w h at I h ad in m i nd w h en I t o ld C o u n s el that an application for the discharge of the accused would be most opportune and would be in fact ill-advised. The Accused closed his case after what the Court said. The C o u rt is no m o re d e t e r m i n i ng w h e t h er t he C r o wn h as m a de a p r i ma facie c a s e. To put it in a n o t h er w a y, h as the C r o wn p r o v ed i ts case b e y o nd r e a s o n a b le d o u b t? In d o i ng t h is we h a ve s c r u t i n i se the C r o w n 's e v i d e n ce b e c a u se A c c u s ed o f f e r ed to no e v i d e n ce in his o wn d e f e n c e. While t he A c c u s ed h as a r i g ht to r e m a in silent. H o f f m a nn a nd Zeffertt. The South African Law of Evidence 4th Edition at page 176 say /. . . "Silence may amount to a damaging admission when it suggests that a party is unable to explain suspicious circumstances." in L e s o t ho t he r i g ht to s i l e n ce r e m a i n s. T he d i f f i c u l ty a r i s es w h e re t he e v i d e n ce of C r o wn w i t n e s s es s t a n ds u n r e b u t t e d. It is t r i te l aw t h at e v i d e n ce o u g ht n ot to be a c c e p t ed m e r e ly b e c a u se it is u n c o n t r a d i a t e d. It b e c o m es a p r o b l em w h en t he C o u rt is i n v i t ed to r e j e ct e v i d e n ce w h i ch on t he f a ce of it is c r e d i b le w h en t he A c c u s ed h i m s e lf h as c h o s en n ot to g i ve e v i d e n ce in r e b u t t a l. H o l m es J . A. in S v S n y m an 1 9 68 ( 2) SA 5 82 at 5 88 G p ut t he p o s i t i on as f o l l o w s: "But where there is direct evidence that the accused committed the crime, in general his failure to testify (whatever his reason therefor) ipso facto tends to strengthen the state case, since there is no testimony to gainsay it and therefore less occasion or material for doubting it;" T he e v i d e n ce of P. W.1 is a c c e p t ed i n s o f ar as it d i s c l o s es t h at he came to k n ow of t he d e a th of D e c e a s ed t h r o u gh N t š e h i s e n g. T he full c i r c u m s t a n c es of h ow t he r e p o rt c a me to be m a de are s h r o u d ed w i th m y s t e ry a nd c o n t r a d i c t i o n s. Ntšehiseng is d e a d, s he c a n n ot t o ll us w h at h a p p e n e d. We h a ve s o me d i f f i c u l ty in a c c e p t i ng t h at N t š e h i s e n g . i n t r o d u c ed A c c u s ed to P. W.1 as h er l o v er w h i le s he w as c o h a b i t i ng w i th D e c e a s e d. T h at is p o s s i b l e, but we h a ve n ot /... t a k en it as a f a c t or in d e c i d i ng t h is c a s e. P . W .4 L e a b ua L e l u ma w as in m a ny r e s p e c ts an u n t r u t h f ul w i t n e s s. W h e t h er he d id s ee t he f i g ht or n ot we a re u n c e r t a i n. In a ny e v e nt P. W.1 d o es n ot m e n t i on P . W .4 as h a v i ng r e p o r t ed t he f i g ht to h im a l o ng w i th Ntšehiseng. W h a t e v er P . W .4 s a ys a b o ut a c t u a l ly i d e n t i f y i ng t he A c c u s ed as t he D e c e a s e d 's A s s a i l a nt we s e r i o u s ly d o u b t, a nd c o n s e q u e n t ly we t a ke t he v i ew t h at P . W .4 m ay n ot be t e l l i ng t he t r u t h. We h a ve g r e at d i f f i c u l ty a b o ut h is s t a t e m e nt t h at f or no a p p a r e nt r e a s on Ntšehiseng. i n t r o d u c ed A c c u s ed as h er l o v e r. Ntšehiseng a m a r r i ed w o m an w ho w as a w i d ow m i g ht h a ve l o v e rs b ut it s t r i k es us as s t r a n ge t h at s he s h o u ld i n t r o d u ce A c c u s ed as h er l o v er w h i le t h ey w e re d r i n k i ng in t he p r e s e n ce of o t h er p e o p le w h i le s he w as k n o wn to be o p e n ly c o h a b i t i ng w i th D e c e a s e d. T h is c o u ld h a ve h a p p e n ed at t he t i me P . W .4 w as t a k i ng Ntšehiseng h o m e. We a c c e pt t he e v i d e n ce of P. W.4 w h e re he s a ys A c c u s ed a c c o m p a n i ed P . W .4 a nd Ntšehiseng. f or a s h o rt d i s t a n ce b e f o re he e x c u s ed h i m s e lf a nd w e nt a w a y. T h e re a re no g r o u n ds f or d o u b l i ng t h at P . W .5 is t e l l i ng t he t r u th w h en s he s a ys A c c u s ed t o ld h er w h en s he f o u nd A c c u s ed at h er h o me t h at he h ad k i l l ed D e c e a s e d. S he w as n ot s h a k en in c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on n or w as a ny m o t i ve to l ie a b o ut t h is f a ct d i s c e r n e d. S he h o n e s t ly a d m i t t ed t h at s he d id n ot k n ow w h e t h er /... A c c u s ed was a l r e a dy at her h o u se on the 1 7 th J a n u a ry 1 9 90 b e c a u se she w as not t h e r e. We have no g r o u n ds for d i s b e l i e v i ng P. W.4 and P. W.6 a b o ut the fact that A c c u s ed w as seen in the v i l l a ge w h e re P. W.6 r e s i d e d. A c c u s e d 's m o v e m e n ts that day are not e x p l a i n ed by the A c c u s e d. The s u g g e s t i on that w as m a de in c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on that he was already in T h a b a n e n g, M a f e t e n g, w h en D e c e a s ed met his d e a th is not e v i d e n c e. M e d i c al e v i d e n ce that D e c e a s ed died of s k u l l - f r a c t u re w i th i n t r a - c r a n i al h a e m o r r h a ge is a c c e p t e d. T he s k u ll f r a c t u re on the left r e t r o - a u r i c u l ar side c o r r e s p o n ds w i th the w o u nd by a s h a rp o b j e ct that caused a wound at the base of the skull b e h i nd the left e a r. H a v i ng come to the c o n c l u s i on that P. W.5 is a t r u t h f ul w i t n e ss w h o se m e r i ts are b e y o nd q u e s t i o n, we a re l a r g e ly of the v i ew that she is the s i n g le r e l i a b le w i t n e ss on w h o se e v i d e n ce our c o n c l u s i on r e v o l v es b e c a u se the o t h er w i t n e s s es m ay be trying to s u p p l e m e nt the C r o wn case w i th f a c ts of w h i ch they are not sure and at p l a c es lie o u t r i g ht as we b e l i e ve P. W.4 may h a ve d o n e. W h e re the C o u rt c o n v i c ts on the e v i d e n ce of a s i n g le w i t n e s s, it has to s a t i s fy i t s e lf as B r o om J. P. held in R v Abdoorham, 1954 ( 3) SA 1 63 at 165 as a m a t t er of c o m m on s e n se that there is no room for e r r or in c o n v i c t i ng on the e v i d e n ce of a s i n g le w i t n e s s. T he r e a s on b e i ng s i m p ly that the C o u rt has n o t h i ng to check the t e s t i m o ny of the s i n g le w i t n e ss a g a i n s t. T h is rule of c o m m on s e n se has b e c o me v i r t u a l ly a rule of law in that as R v M o k o e n a, 1 9 56 (3) SA 81 at p a ge 85 s h o w s. D e s p i te this d a n g e r, we are s a t i s f i ed that the e v i d e n ce of P. W.5 h as no d e m e r i t s. T h e re are two w i t n e s s es who c l a im to h a ve s e en A c c u s ed in the v i l l a ge the day D e c e a s ed w as k i l l e d. T h e se are P. M.4 and P. W.6. We a l so have the p o l i c e m an w ho s a ys the k n i fe b e f o re Court is the o ne P. W.7 s a ys he got from the A c c u s e d. T h e se f a c ts p r o v i de some c i r c u m s t a n t i al m a t e r i al that c o n v i c t i ng on the s i n g le e v i d e n ce of P. W.5 is not a m i s t a k e. We do not a c c e pt the eye w i t n e ss a c c o u nt to the k i l l i ng g i v en by P. W.4 b e c a u se it s t r i k es us as being s u p p l e m e n t ed by f a c ts he did not s ee but m e r e ly adds on in an a t t e m pt to be h e l p f u l. We are s a t i s f i ed the A c c u s ed k i l l ed D e c e a s e d. D e s p i te the a b s e n ce of e v i d e n ce from the A c c u s e d, we do not b e l i e ve the A c c u s ed had the r e q u i s i te i n t e n t i on to k i l l. It s e e ms D e c e a s ed /... had problems with Ntšehiseng that day at the time Accused was in the village of P. W.6. That is why he went to P. W.6. We do not have the full information about what was going on at this place where P. W.4 says Accused and Ntšehiseng were drinking. That Accused and Deceased fought over the lover Ntšehiseng, whom they shared, is obvious. The killing happened at the house of Ntšehiseng. It seems to us this killing occurred during a heated quarrel and fight that must have occurred between Accused and Deceased. P. W.4 says he heard that there was fighting while he was still in Ntšehiseng's house. This must have happened when Deceased found Accused outside the house of Ntšehiseng where Deceased was living at the time. Accused has chosen not to shed any light on the details of the fight. We have come to the conclusion that Accused is guilty of Culpable Homicide. My Assessors agree. JUDGE W. C. M. MAQUTU For the Crown For the Accused : Mr. : Mr. Mohapi Mafantiri