R v Motsepe and Another (CRI/A 434 of 96) [1997] LSHC 37 (7 April 1997)

CRI\A\434\96 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO M O K H E LE M O T S E PE . 1 st Appellant K E L E B O NE L E T H O BA 2nd Appellant Vs R E X Respondent J U D G M E NT D e l i v e r ed by the H o n. Mr Justice M . L. L e h o h la On the 7th d ay of April. 1 9 97 T he t wo appellants e m p l o y ed as soldiers in the L e s o t ho D e f e n ce force w e re c h a r g ed a nd c o n v i c t ed by the L e a r n ed M a g i s t r a te Mr L e s e n y e ho of r a pe in C o u nt 1 a nd s e n t e n c ed to five y e a r s' i m p r i s o n m e n t; a nd of assault w i th intent to do g r i e v o us bodily h a rm in C o u nt 2 a nd s e n t e n c ed to t wo y e a r s' i m p r i s o n m e nt e a c h. T he s e n t e n c es w e re o r d e r ed to r un consecutively as a p p e a rs in the learned M a g i s t r a t e 's p h o t o c o p i ed m a n u s c r i p t. B ut the t y p ed script p r e p a r ed by t he appellants' counsel's office indicated that s e n t e n c es w e re to r un concurrently. T he appellants w e r e, at the t i me of the alleged offences c o m m i t t ed on 31st J a n u a r y, 1 9 9 6, a g ed 25 a nd 26 y e a rs respectively. T he victim w as a g ed 54 years. W h en the matter w as first p l a c ed before court on 19th July, 1 9 96 it w as by w ay of application for bail p e n d i ng appeal. A p p a r e n t ly the appellants h ad b r e a c h ed conditions of bail i m p o s ed by the subordinate court in that t h ey h ad threatened to assault or e v en kill c r o wn w i t n e s s e s. T h us their bail w as r e v o k ed by that court on 4th M a y, 1 9 9 6. T he H i gh C o u rt thus refused to grant the appellants bail as things s t o od in July, 1 9 96 a nd w e nt further h o w e v er to order that if by 19th O c t o b e r, 1 9 96 the record f r om the subordinate C o u rt w as n ot furnished to the H i gh C o u rt they w e re at large to re-apply. A hastily p h o t o c o p i ed record w as prepared a nd f o r w a r d ed to the H i gh C o u r t. On 2 5 th N o v e m b e r, 1 9 96 the court e x p r e s s ed its willingness to p r o c e ed w i th the c a se using the record at h a n d. T h us the matter w a s, after s o me hick-ups as to service on the other side, finally tabled for hearing on 9th D e c e m b er 1 9 9 6. On this latter d ay it w as f o u nd p r u d e nt by all c o n c e r n ed to d e l ve into the matter of the appellants' appeals. M o r e so b e c a u se the type-script w as in h a nd e v e n. T h us the C o u rt p r o c e e d ed to h e ar a r g u m e n ts a nd s u b m i s s i o ns by respective counsel. T he record reveals the dismal story of P W1 ' M a l e b o h a ng L e b o to to the effect that h a v i ng g o ne to b ed at a b o ut 8 p . m. on 31st J a n u a r y, 1 9 9 6, w h i le still in the w a t c h es of the night a nd at the e s t i m a t ed h o ur of a r o u nd 9 p . m. s he h e a rd a r o u gh a nd forceful o p e n i ng of her d o or by s o m e o n e. S he a s k ed w ho it w as but w as v o u c h s a f ed no reply. S he p ut on the light a nd noticed by aid of that light that the intruder into h er h o u se w h i ch w as not l o c k ed in the first p l a ce w as appellant 1 M o t s e p e. W h en s he a s k ed w h at he w a n t ed he just i g n o r ed h er a nd sauntered outside. T h e r e u p on P W1 (the c o m p l a i n a n t) f o l l o w ed h im into a r o om n e xt door. In there P W1 f o u nd ' M a m a s o a t si the o c c u p a nt of the r o om in c o m p a ny of appellant 2 a nd a military S g nt M o l o p o ( P W 3) a nd s o me other regular b e er drinkers at that place. T h is r o om is notorious for b e er sales. P W1 a p p e a l ed to the m e d l ey of h u m a n i ty f o u nd in that r o om to r e p r i m a nd appellant 1 for encroaching u p on her privacy without permission. A p p e l l a nt 2 a s k ed appellant 1 if he h e a rd that P Wl w as c o m p l a i n i ng that he h ad g o ne into h er r o o m. T h e r e u p on appellant 1 replied m o c k i n g ly that PW1 w as s a y i ng " n y o e e, n y o e e" . m e a n i ng s he w as either n a g g i ng or m a k i ng insufferable w h i m p e r i n g s. All in all appellant 1 a p p e a r ed to be dismissive of the c o m p l a i n a n t 's a p p e a ls for intervention. against appellant 1's n u i s a n c e. PW1 w ho m u st h a ve felt v e ry irritated indeed, left the r o om in a fit of a n g er o n ly to s t o rm b a ck in carrying s o me paraffin w h i ch s he e m p t i ed on appellant 1. T h e re a nd t h en appellant 2 fetched h er a fist b l ow f o l l o w ed by m a ny others as appellant 1 closed ranks a nd m a de c o m m on c a u se w i th h im in raining b l o ws on the w r e t c h ed w o m a n. T he c o m p l a i n a nt w as subjected to s a v a ge kicks w i th b o o t ed feet all o v er her b o dy by the t wo appellants. T he c o m p l a i n a nt w as so p e r p l e x ed by this violent treatment that she w as not able to see w h at w as h a p p e n i ng in the r o om in w h i ch s he w a s. S he h e a rd P W3 a sk the t wo assailants w h at they w e re d o i ng b ut w as ignored by t h e m. S he got to notice that all other p e o p le e x c e pt the t wo appellants h ad g o ne out a nd fled f r om the r o o m. S he didn't k n ow w h en they so fled. As s he w as lying d o wn trying to r e c o v er f r om the battering suffered by h er b o dy s he felt w h en appellant 1 t o ok off h er p a n ty a nd inserted his penis into her v a g i n a. S he also h e a rd w h en appellant 2 u r g ed appellant 1 to finish quickly as he also w as itching to gratify his sexual lust; s a y i ng this appellant 2 w as standing astride the c o m p l a i n a n t. It s e e ms that P W1 h ad b e en r e n d e r ed n u mb by the assaults b e c a u se s he said s he c o u l d n 't resist w h en appellant I t o ok off the p a n ty s he w as w e a r i ng b e c a u se s he w as v e ry w e a k. W h en appellant 1 h ad finished d o i ng his sordid d e ed on the c o m p l a i n a n t, appellant 2 t o ok his turn in h a v i ng sexual intercourse w i th the c o m p l a i n a nt w i t h o ut h er c o n s e nt a nd against h er will. T he c o m p l a i n a nt estimates that h er ordeal in ' M a m a s o a t s i 's r o om c o u ld h a ve lasted t wo h o u r s. Thereafter the appellants d r a g g ed the c o m p l a i n a nt telling h er to go a nd report to appellant 1 's w i fe that s he h ad p o u r ed paraffin on the other's h u s b a n d. W h en the c o m p l a i n a nt a s k ed for m o n ey f r om his t o r m e n t o rs as s he c o u ld n ot s ee appellant 2 said that w as n o ne of their business. H a v i ng pulled a nd d r a g g ed the c o m p l a i n a nt to a place the surroundings of w h i ch w e re n ot familiar to h er the appellants o n ce m o re r a p ed her. S he p a s s ed out. W h en s he c a me to s he realised that it w as t h en late d a wn as s he c o u ld h e ar s o u n ds of w h e e l b a r r o ws b e i ng p u s h ed by early risers. S he thus a s k ed for h e lp as at this t i me the appellants h ad apparently left, b ut o n ly it s e e m s, temporarily. T h us as the c o m p l a i n a nt a s k ed for h e lp s he h e a rd appellant 2 a p p r o a c h. ( S he identified h im by his v o i ce as he did s o ). He k i c k ed the complainant o n ce m o r e. Passers-by c a me to the complainant's rescue. It w as w h i le s he w as b e i ng thus h e l p ed by those p e o p le that she h e a rd appellant I say " we thought s he w as d e a d. Is s he still alive?" T he c o m p l a i n a nt w as p l a c ed in vehicle a nd driven to Q u e en Elizabeth II Hospital. T he cross-examination elicited nothing in the appellants' favour. P W 1 's story is corroborated by P W2 L i e k e t s e ng B u l a ne w ho w as in ' M a m a s o a t s i 's r o om w h en P W1 c a me a nd a s k ed P W3 to r e p r i m a nd appellant for intruding into her r o om while she lay in b ed in order to go to sleep. P W2 s aw w h en P W1 w e nt out followed shortly afterwards by appellant 1 w ho later c a me b a ck into ' M a m a s o a t s i 's r o om f o l l o w ed by P W1 w ho threatened to d r e n ch appellant,1 w i t h. paraffin for tormenting her as he h ad previously d o n e. S he did in fact p o ur paraffin on appellant 1. P W2 s aw w h en the t wo appellants struck o ut w i th fists at P W1 a nd k i c k ed her. P W3 tried to intervene but to no avail. W h en P W2 tried to go out appellant 2 closed the d o or a nd said no o ne w o u ld go out. He e v en put off the light. P W2 t o ok a d v a n t a ge of the d a r k n e ss in the h o u se a nd m a n a g ed to slip out of the d o or as it w as not locked. Little children w e re w o k en up by the c o m m o t i on w h i ch h ad e n s u e d. F or instance the 13 y e ar old L i m p ho on a s k i ng w hy his m o t h er w as being assaulted, w as fetched a kick on the s t o m a ch by appellant 2 w ho w as o b s e r v ed d o i ng this by P W2 w ho w as at the d o o r w ay w h en it occurred. T he d o or w as closed again with the little L i m p ho trapped inside but he m a n a g ed to c o me out through the w i n d o w. P W2 a nd L i m p ho w e nt to raise the a l a rm at L i m p h o 's uncle. On their w ay b a ck they h e a rd appellant 2 urgently asking appellant 1 w h e t h er he w as n ot through. P W2 says s he h e a rd appellant 2 a sk w hy appellant 1 w as d e l a y i ng so m u ch b e f o re ejaculating. P W2 also h e a rd w h en P W1 said s he w a n t ed to be g i v en h er s h a w l. B ut appellant 1 said he w o u ld o n ly give it to h er on their w ay to appellant 1's w i f e. T h e se are all factors w h i ch c o r r o b o r a te the material aspects of the c o m p l a i n a n t 's story that she w as r a p ed by the t wo appellants as i n d e ed it w as m a de clear by appellant 2 that he w a n t ed to take his turn after appellant 1 w ho w as taking u n d u ly l o ng b e f o re ejaculating. To my m i nd there couldn't h a ve b e en a ny talk of ejaculation unless sexual intercourse w as taking place. S u ch sexual intercourse w h i ch is d e n i ed by the t wo appellants, t o ok p l a ce w i t h o ut P W 1 's c o n s e nt as s he testified. T h us the appellants' denial that it t o ok p l a ce in c i r c u m s t a n c es outlined b y. the c r o wn w i t n e s s es is false b e y o nd d o u bt a nd w as p r o p e r ly rejected by the court b e l o w. T h us in the light of o v e r w h e l m i ng e v i d e n ce of sexual assault on the c o m p l a i n a nt it c a n n ot avail the appellants that m e d i c al e v i d e n ce d o es n ot establish rape b e c a u se no vaginal s m e ar w as p e r f o r m ed o w i ng to lack of facilities at Q u e en Elizabeth II Hospital. Mr R a k u o a ne stated that there w a s n 't g o i ng to be a ny a p p e al regarding c o n v i c t i on for assault. T he o n ly a p p e al w o u ld be as to sentence. T he a p p e al on conviction related to rape. He e x p r e s s ed the w i sh that the d o c t or h ad g i v en e v i d e n c e. He w as dissatisfied that n o t h i ng w as c o n s e q u e n t ly said a b o ut the physical nature of the c o m p l a i n a n t. He accordingly submitted that b e c a u se there h a d n 't b e en a ny physical e x a m i n a t i on by the d o c t or s o me d o u bt exists w h i ch s h o u ld r e d o u nd to the appellant's f a v o u r. I m ay just a dd that it b e g g a rs description that the p l oy u s ed by the appellants to d r aw the c o m p l a i n a n t, f r om possible help s he m i g ht h a ve obtained f r om L i m p h o 's uncle w as no m o re than just a heartless stratagem in that to date the c o m p l a i n a nt h as n ot b e en c o n f r o n t ed w i th appellant 1's w i fe to s ay w hy s he p o u r ed paraffin on h er h u s b a nd yet the r e a s on for dragging the c o m p l a i n a nt f r om h er p r e m i s es a nd d e n y i ng her the s h a wl w as said to be just as told by the c o m p l a i n a nt a nd n ot d e n i ed by either of the appellants. N e e d l e ss to s ay the c o m p l a i n a nt w as left in the forest far a w ay f r om her h o u se a nd n o w h e re n e ar appellant 1's wife's place!! In my v i ew authorities are legion that d o u bt w h i ch s h o u ld be g i v en in f a v o ur of an a c c u s ed p e r s on is reasonable d o u b t. A ny d o u bt that is b a s ed on factors w h i ch are o u t w e i g h ed by p r o v en facts, a nd w h i ch is inconsistent w i th solid f o u n d a t i on on w h i ch t h o se facts a re b a s e d, c a n n ot avail for it c a n n ot be r e a s o n a b l e. In the f a ce of o v e r w h e l m i ng e v i d e n ce b a s ed on facts w h i ch a re inconsistent w i th the i n n o c e n ce of the appellants, c o u p l ed w i th their outright f a l s e h o od in an a t t e m pt to disentangle t h e m s e l v es f r om a h o p e l e ss situation t h ey created against t h e m s e l v e s, it w o u ld go against the grain that 1 s h o u ld a l l ow m y s e lf to be p e r s u a d ed to p r o p o u nd a test that is n ot required by the l aw all in the n a me of upsetting a c o n v i c t i on p r o p e r ly s e c u r ed by the C o u rt b e l o w. T he l aw d o es n ot require p r o of b e y o nd all d o u b t. If this w e re the c a se I am afraid the w o r st fears of L o rd D e n n i ng in Miller vs Minister of Pensions ( 1 9 4 7) 2 A LL ER 3 72 at 3 73 w o u ld be realised that fanciful possibilities w o u l d, if a l l o w ed by l a w, result in the c o u r se of Justice b e i ng deflected a nd the c o m m u n i ty b e i ng failed protection in the p r o c e s s. All that the l aw requires is p r o of b e y o nd r e a s o n a b le d o u b t, a nd n ot p r o of b e y o nd all or s h a d ow of d o u bt that the a c c u s ed is guilty. M a i s e ls P in A p p e al C a se N o . 4 \ l 9 84 C l e m e nt Kobedi Gofhamodimo vs The State ( u n r e p o r t e d) at p 6 m a k es reference to Mr Justice Story's r e m a rk w h en c h a r g i ng a jury in Williams'Trial(wigmore, 3 rd ed. V ol 7 at p . 4 20 as f o l l o w s: " d o u b t i ng r e a s o n a b le e v i d e n ce T h e re a l w a ys r e m a i ns s o me g r o u nd for the conjectures of the B ut we m u st act as r e a s o n a b le m en on " ( E m p h a s is supplied by m e ). Of p a r a m o u nt i m p o r t a n ce to b e ar in m i nd in sexual c a s es is that T h e re is no rule of l aw requiring c o r r o b o r a t i on of t h e' " complainant's e v i d e n ce but there is a well-established cautionary rule of practice in r e g a rd to c o m p l a i n a n ts in s e x u al c a s es in t e r ms of w h i ch a trial court m u st w a rn itself of the d a n g e rs inherent in their e v i d e n ce a nd a c c o r d i n g ly s h o u ld l o ok for c o r r o b o r a t i on of all the essential e l e m e n ts of the offence. Thus in a case of r a p e, the trial court should look for corroboration of the e v i d e n ce of intercourse itself, the lack of c o n s e nt alleged a nd the identity of the alleged offender". S ee A P P. C a se N o. 5 6 \ 84 Vilakati vs Regina ( u n r e p o r t e d) at 3- S w a z i l a nd A p p e al C o u rt decision. I feel that all these r e q u i r e m e n ts h a ve b e en fulfilled in the instant case. F u r t h e r- " If a ny or all of these e l e m e n ts are u n c o r r o b o r a t ed the court m u st w a rn itself of the d a n g er of convicting a n d, in s u ch c i r c u m s t a n c e s, it will only convict if acceptable a nd reliable e v i d e n ce exists to s h ow that the c o m p l a i n a nt is a reliable a nd trustworthy w i t n e s s ". I d o n 't A nd t he c o m p l a i n a nt b e h i n d h a nd in this q u a r t er either. As earlier stated the a p p e a ls against b o th c o n v i c t i on a nd s e n t e n ce as t he c a se m ay be are d i s m i s s e d. I m ay o n l y, for t he s a ke of clarity necessitated by t wo conflicting versions on s e n t e n ce in the C o u rt b e l o w; r e p e at that s e n t e n c es a re to r un concurrently. JUDGE 7th April, 1997 F or Appellants : Mr R a k u o a ne F or R e s p o n d e n t: Mr T h e t s a ne