R v Sebotsa (CR 4 of 2000) [2000] LSCA 46 (1 January 2000)

IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the m a t t er b e t w e en R EX and T U M E LO S E B O T SA O R D ER ON R E V I EW R e v i ew C a se N o. 1 / 2 0 00 R e v i ew O r d er N o. 1 / 2 0 00 CR 4 / 2 0 00 In Q u t h i ng District T he a c c u s ed a m o s o t ho adult a g ed a b o ut 25 years of S i x o n do in the Q u t h i ng district w as c h a r g ed w i th the c r i me of r a pe in that on the 1st d ay of J a n u a ry 2 0 00 at Patise S i x o n do in the Q u t h i ng district he did u n l a w f u l ly a nd intentionally h a ve sexual intercourse w i th K e l ly N e l i sa M t a b a ne a m o s o t ho f e m a le a g ed a b o ut eight years a nd t h us incapable in l aw of c o n s e n t i ng thereto a nd on the alternative that he h ad c o n t r a v e n ed the provisions of S e c t i on 3 ( 1) of W o m en a nd Girls' Protection P r o c l a m a t i on N o. 14 of 1 9 49 in that at the a f o r e m e n t i o n ed p l a ce a nd date he did unlawfully a nd intentionally h a ve sexual intercourse w i th K e l ly Nelisa M t a b a n e, a m i n or f e m a le a g ed about 8 years. To this charge the accused p l e a d ed guilty a nd after the prosecution h ad outlined the facts u n d er Section 2 40 of the Criminal P r o c e d u re a nd E v i d e n ce A ct of 1 9 8 1, he w as f o u nd guilty u n d er the alternative charge, a nd w as sentenced to five years i m p r i s o n m e n t. It is w h at the facts as outlined revealed w h i ch has c a u s ed me concern. F or a conviction u n d er Section 3 of the Proclamation sexual intercourse m u st be p r o v ed as penile penetration into the vagina. In the m e d i c al report that w as h a n d ed in the m e d i c al officer of Q u t h i ng w ho e x a m i n ed the c o m p l a i n a nt on the 4th January 2 0 00 m a de following remarks:- "Abrasions a r o u nd the a n us a nd the vestibule." " T h e re is physical evidence that she w as s o d o m i s e d ." "Patient w as s o d o m i s e d" " V a g i n a: n o r m a l" U n d er our c o m m on l aw on unnatural sexual offences, sexual relations b e t w e en a m a le a nd a f e m a le p er a n um do not constitute an offence ( S n y m an - C r i m i n al L aw 3 Ed p.341; J V an d er L i n d en 2.7.7. If the w o m an is not a consenting party, intercourse with her p er a n um constitutes indecent assault.. R v. M (2) SA 4 06 - ( w h e re a verdict of indecent assault w as substituted). T he facts outlined point that the c o m p l a i n a nt a l o ng w i th other children h ad b e en sent to b uy a case of beer a nd that on their w ay b a c k, the a c c u s ed h ad intercepted her a nd taken her to a valley w h e re he m o l e s t ed her sexually. I am of the v i ew that the evidence or findings of the m e d i c al doctor m u st be relied on a nd to do so necessarily m e a ns that the alternative verdict c a n n ot stand b e c a u se sexual intercourse or vaginal penetration h as not b e en p r o v e d. W h at facts point to is anal penetration. Section 1 87 of the Criminal P r o c e d u re a nd E v i d e n ce A ct of 1 9 81 reads- "(1) A ny p e r s on c h a r g ed w i th rape m ay be f o u nd guilty of- (a) assault w i th intent to c o m m it rape; or (b) indecent assault; (c) assault w i th intent to do grievous bodily h a r m; or (d) assault; (e) the statutory offence of u n l a w f ul carnal k n o w l e d ge of, or c o m m i t t i ng a ny i m m o r al or indecent act w i th a girl of or u n d er a specified a g e; or (9 (8) if s u ch be the facts proved. T he facts of this case do not indicate rape (or vaginal penetration) but s o d o m y. It is c o m p e t e nt for this court to substitute a verdict correct in l a w, n a m e l y, that of indecent assault b e c a u se s o d o my cannot be c o m m i t t ed by a m an u p on a w o m a n. S. v. M 1 9 79 (2) SA 4 06 (R, A D ). This m ay appear to be an anatomical m y s t e ry to an ordinary m an on the street! In the circumstances of this case, justice requires that the conviction of rape be set aside because the facts do not prove vaginal penetration but an anal o n e. T he only competent verdict is o ne of indecent assault as neither rape or s o d o my c an be sustained. It is ordered therefore that the verdict of rape be aside a nd substituted with o ne of indecent assault. (S v M 1 9 8 4 ( 4) S A. 1ll R v A b r a h a m s. 1 9 18 C PD at 5 9 3 ). As regards sentence, there is no reason to interfere with sentence despite the substitution of verdicts. Sentence is therefore confirmed. S . N T P E E TE J U D GE 4