CRI/T/3/86
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the matter of:
REX
VS
MAFOLE SEMATLANE
JUDGMENT
Delivered by the Hon. Acting Mr. Justice M. L. Lehohla on the 12th day of February, 1987
After the ruling made on 12th September 1986 this matter was postponed to 6th November for hearing of defence evidence. Addresses were heard on 13th November 1986.
Much of the important aspects of the Crown evidence was dealt with in the ruling that was made. It remains therefore to deal with defence evidence against where necessary the background of the Crown evidence. Defence evidence was led by the accused alone.
He testified under oath that he is a policeman and that around the period surrounding the events of 30th March 1985 when deceased
Phomolo Leballo met his death he was a policeman still undergoing training.
On the morning of 30th March 1985 Accused testified that he had been drinking with friends at Upper Thamae. He went to deceased's shebeen at Lower Thamae and arrived there at about 2 O'clock in the morning. At the shebeen he found the deceased with some six other consisting of
2
deceased's girl friend i.e. P.W.11 ('Mangaka Tlall) at P.E., deceased's sister P.W. 10 (Nts'iuoa Leballo) at P.E., Thaba Hoohlo P.W.9 at P.E., Tholo Masakale P.W.8 at P.E., all of whose evidence was admitted in these proceedings and some two others, to wit, a girl whose name accused does not remember and a young boy whom he does not know.
On arrival accused was offered beer by the deceased. Apparently the two were used to each other for a long time as stated by accused though he regarded him as an acquaintance. Deceased told him that he and the people found present there were about to leave and asked accused to help drive deceased's vehicle and transport them in accused's presence as the latter felt due to intake of much alcohol he could not personally drive his own vehicle. Accused agreed.
The deceased sat on the front passenger seat while P.We 9, 10 and 11 at P.E. occupied the back seat. Accused was the driver. The vehicle headed for Lerotholi Technical Institute where P.W.9 and 10 supra were dropped.
The rest of the party drove to Khubetsoana. P.W.11 puts the time of their arrival at 5 a.m. See page 16 of the P.E. record. After taking rounds at Khubetsoana P.W.11 supra was set down from the vehicle. She asked deceased to also disembark for some talk but it was not until persuaded by accused that deceased complied. After some time deceased got back into the vehicle and asked accused to drive to 'Mamahlelebe's shebeen which is also at Khubetsoana. The time according to accused was either 5 or 6 a.m. At this time the company consisted exclusively of the two of them. They continued drinking beer at this shebeen for about an hour.
3
At some stage during the drinking at this place deceased asked accused to remove their car from the way to allow passage for other motor vehicle road users. It was after accused had parked the vehicle properly, having performed reversing mancuvers in the dark under the guidance and direction of deceased that he noticed that deceased was talking to some people near another vehicle. Accused went back into the house. On his return into the house deceased gave to accused a plastic parcel. It turned out that this parcel contained bullets which accused did not count at the time. The parcel was handed over to accused on the allegation that deceased was wearing a trek suit. Accused is non-committal on whether this trek suit had any pockets for in his own words "According to him (meaning deceased)it appeared the trek suit had no pockets."
Then eventually the two left intending to go to their respective homes. However accused decided to call at his girlfriend's home at Borokhoaneng. When deceased and accused left Khubetsoana it was already light i.e. about 6 or 7 a.m. On knocking at his girlfriend's
door he was not allowed in the reason offered by the girlfriend being that she had visitors. Thereupon accused informed the deceased that he would rather be dropped at the Main Bus Stop at Pitso Ground because he was no longer interested in going home. This was done and from the Pitso Ground where deceased took the wheel after accused had been set down deceased then drove off taking the direction leading towards Metro and rounded off the Molimo Nthuse Bottle Store corner on the other side of which his vehicle disappeared. This according to accused is the last occasion that he saw the deceased.
4
Accused testified that he was carrying a firearm borrowed from 2nd Lt. Mokhele that day because he had not yet been issued with his own because the store keeper responsible for issuing firearms was not there. Accused is adamant that he never fired that firearm on the morning of 30th March 1985 or at all.
From the Bus Stop accused says he went to T.Y. to visit his maternal uncle. The time was then about 8 a.m. He was not supposed to go to work on that day. He concedes in his evidence in chief that he disappeared from 30th March till 20th April 1985 when he eventually surfaced.
Explaining his movements during the interval spanning the period of his disappearance and eventual emergence accused says on the night of 31st March at around 9 p.m. he went to Khubetsoana to see a girl he had met at 'Mamahlelebe's shebeen the previous day i.e. Saturday night. He did not find her and was asked to go and wait outside for taxis as 'Mamahlelebe was then going to bed.
While thus waiting he saw that same vehicle he had seen deceased talking to the occupants of on Saturday, arrive. One of the occupants then got out of it and knocked at 'Mamahlelebe's door. Apparently he was not allowed into the house whereupon he inquired from the accused if it was still open but was told"no". Accused then asked for a lift from these two people who were strangers to him. He had seen one of them only once. They dropped accused at the turn off to Sebaboleng for they were proceeding to Ha Ts'osane. It was while accused was in this vehicle that he was told by these two strangers that Phomolo was dead. He learnt from them also some further details bearing upon
5
Phomolo's death. These were that deceased had been shot by a policeman he had been travelling with on the Saturday. On asking about the description of the policeman in question they gave accused the description to which accused's identity answered by fitting in not only with the time deceased and accused were together but also with his clothing and the fact that the policeman in question had, while at University, been the goal keeper for the University football club Rovers.
They informed accused that deceased's friends including police used to those friends and soldiers were hunting for the policeman in question with the aim of killing him in the manner different from that in which they had killed one Lebohang who had been shot. This time they would effect the killing secretly. He also learnt from these strangers that Lebohang was an ordinary civillian who was shot on an allegation that he had shot deceased's friend.
Accused was frightened by this story because he had learnt that the said Lebohang had not been the person responsible for the killing of deceased's friend but was as innocent as accused regarded himself.
Then accused went home to sleep. Then on Tuesday he says he told the police by which he was quick to explain that he phoned Major
Manamolela. The latter inquired where accused was phoning from so that she could fetch him but accused declined to do so because he did not know who to trust after hearing that deceased's friends were intent on killing him by gun fire. He now says that in fact he
6
had been calling from the Veterinary Clinic in Maseru.
Accused denies that he ever came in the vicinity of the Agricultural College during his travel with deceased.
On 20th April, 1986 at 12.45 p.m. he came to Police Training College and met P.W.1 Sergeant Lerotholi after his arrival. The reason for going there was that it would be useless hiding for a long time because he would ultimately be found out by those people he feared were hunting for him.
P. W. 1 wanted to know why accused had disappeared and where he had been. Accused informed him that there were people who were looking for him alleging that accused had killed their friends so they wanted to retaliate. Otherwise accused told him he was still in Maseru. He further said P.W.1 did not tell him that police were looking for him on suspicion of killing someone. Next the two went for food as accused told P.W.1 that he was hungry.
Accused denies that he said without any prompting "I cleared one person; one dog has died from the bullet." Accused says he heard P.W.1 testifying that accused said the above words to him because P.W.1 alleged they were friends, a factor that accused denies.
However in the same breath he says they lately are on friendly terms and by lately he says he means a little before the start of the Preparatory Examination. He denies that on 20th April 1985 they were on friendly terms. The basis of his assertion that they were not on friendly terms with Lerotholi then is as set out in the summary of the evidence contained in the ruling referred to earlier.
Accused testified that it was during the time while he and P.W.1 were at meals that P.W.2 Lt. Letsie arrived
7
and a discussion ensued wherein P.W.2 inquired when accused intended coming back to P. T. C. to complete the course. It is to be noted that although accused was a police trainee he was not based at P. T. C. but was attached to Police Headquarters. Accused replied that he would come back to P. T. C. to complete the course when instructed to do so. P.W.2 then told him that he was still required at P. T. C. He says it is not true that he was supposed to be at P.T.C. at the time. He further points out that it is not true that in answer to a question put by P.W.2 he said he was back at P.T.C. because he had an assignment. He remembers hearing P.W.2 say in giving evidence that accused did not divulge to him the nature of that assignment even though accused was required to comply when asked by P.W.2 as accused's senior. He further says P.W.2 who was only 2nd Lt. cannot have been the most senior officer at P.T.C. at the time because accused saw Lt. Mphutlane who is senior to P.W.2 Despite his denial of P.W. 2's version it is surprising indeed that accused should say he suggested that he should rather be taken to Major Manamolela. The reason for preference to be taken to Manamolela is given as having to do with accused's disappearance as against P.W.2's intention to take accused to the charge office.
At the charge office Lt. Col. Sehloho asked P.W.2 where the firearm accused had been carrying was. Then accused took out the gun and some bullets. The firearm was loaded. Accused unloaded it of four rounds of ammunition which he had received from 2nd Lt. Mokhele still in their intact state. Accused was never searched. He was locked up in a cell and no charge was given to him before being locked up. He only knew for the first time that he was
facing this charge when he attended his first remand on 26th April, 1985.
Referring to P.W.4's evidence (Lt. 'Neko's) accused concedes that he and P.W.4 are related but that he is not on good terms with P.W.4 because the latter is related to accused's wife and accused's marriage to his wife is not a happy one. Accused denies that some policeman told P.W.4 that accused wanted to see him i.e. P.W.4. He denies ever telling any policeman that he wanted to see P.W.4.
Accused's version is that he was fetched from the cell in the usual manner and taken to Maseru C.I.D. office and he got seated on a bench in the corridor and was later called by a policeman to an office where he found P.W.4. He denies having been asked by 'Neko to give an explanation about his disappearance. All he knows is that P.W.4 said he should sit down then asked him if people with whom he stayed still come to see him and further whether they were bringing him clothes and food. Accused replied in the affirmative save that on that day they had not come whereupon P.W.4 offered to bring him food if he was hungry. Nothing relating to this charge was discussed between these two. He denied P.W.4'3 version that he said he had quarrelled with deceased near Agricultural College. He went further to stress that at no time was he and deceased ever at that place. He denied that P.W.4 asked him where deceased was. He denied telling P.W.4 that he left deceased at Mokoaqong and stresses that he did not know of a place by that name -around 23rd April 1985. He concedes that he went to Ha Leqele with P.W.4, P.W.5 and one Alfa. The reason he went there with P.W.4 was to show the latter where he had
9
attended picnics on two previous occasions. He did not know before going there on the day in question that a body had been removed from there or nearby.
If I may for a moment pause here and reflect on accused's testimony:- He has strained to distance himself at every turn from any connection with the tragic event that befell the deceased. In doing so he has even gone to ludicrous lengths. For him to suggest that P.W.4 a senior officer who was on a murder trail and as such called upon by responsibilities of his office to interview or interrogate a suspect should confine himself to mundane things like whether accused was still receiving food or clothing and; as if that is not enough,go along with a posse of senior policemen in the company of the accused merely to have the latter show him where he had previously held picnics is, to say the least,absurd in the extreme.
The Court went on inspection in loco to the area where accused alleges he went with P.W.4 and others. Indeed P.W.5 led me first to an area some sixty paces from where vehicles were stationed. This is a donga relatively shallower than the next lying another thirty paces uphill. The first spot accords more with the description given by the Crown witnesses than the second one where they later indicated is where the body of the deceased was removed from. Accused admits that the first spot is the one where he went with P.W.4 to show him where he held picnics twice.
Accused denies ever pointing inside any part in that donga and saying to P.W.4 that a certain spot on the edge of the donga is where he left the deceased. He says he never spoke about the deceased while he and the others were there. He denies that after the alleged pointing by him
10
P.W.4 then asked P.W.5 if he could confirm that this was the spot where P.W.5 collected the body of the deceased. Accused stresses that nowhere within his hearing was the deceased spoken about by P.W.4 and those others.
Accused says he does not know how deceased met his death and that in any case he is not accountable for it.
Mention has been made of the fact that the first spot in the donga accords with the description given by the Crown witnesses. The second spot however appeared to
have lost the arched curve on the edge probably because of and plumping down the soil falling off and plumping down from the bank due to erosion as was suggested by further cracks about a foot from the edge of the donga.
Accused emphasised that he never had a quarrel with deceased.
Under cross-examination accused stated that in going round and round at Khubetsoana it did not appear as if deceased who was directing him had lost direction. It would also appear that the party at deceased's shebeen left that place at 5.00 a.m. It would also appear that deceased and accused left 'Mamahlelebe's shebeen at about 6 a.m. in the morning of March 30th 1985.
Accused also revealed that Major Manamolela knew where he was during the period when he was not on duty. This he informed her by Telephone on a Tuesday following the date of his disappearance i.e. 30th March 1985. He also mentioned to her that he was still in Maseru hiding himself. He said he refused to tell her where he was hiding. It is again strange that a man in the position of accused who has laid so much stress on the importance of a junior
11
having to do what his senior commands him to do should be heard to say that he refused to reveal his whereabouts when asked to reveal same by his staff officer Manamolela. However he explains that he suspected her of being one of those hunting for him. He did not find it wise to hand himself over to the police even though he is one of them and presumably knows as such that it is the wisest thing to do when one is in circumstances such as he was in.
Asked why he decided to surface at P.T.C. and risk capture at that area he replied that he did so because there were recruits there who would have seen him and he trusted them. He said he did not go to P.T.C. for protection but rather so that police would find him if it was true they were looking for him.
He also said P.W.1 Sgt. Lerotholl was fabricating against him when he said accused told him "I have removed someone from the way and one dog has died from a bullet" for which he is unable to account. However he alluded to the occasions previous to 20th April 1985 when P.W.1 and he had some tiffs.
The impression I have formed of these so-called quarrels with P.W.1 is that they were not of such a nature as to cause any enmity between them. Indeed during argument Mr. Pheko for the accused did not find fault with the remark that regard being had to the fact that accused is a recruit this behaviour could well be expected by new comers from old comers as a way of initiating the former to the new community.
Indeed it is fitting to observe at this stage that from the evidence that has emerged accused desires to be
12
regarded as a very solitary person leading a melancholic existence. He cuts a very sombre picture of himself. He renounces the friendship that P.W.1 says exists between the two of them. He is suspicious of P.W.4's overtures for friendship and says he is not on friendly terms with P.W.4 because of the attitude P.W.4 has towards him as a result of discordant relations between him and his wife. Needless to say evidence shows he does not live together with his wife because of disharmony existing between them. He does not admit the existence of obvious friendship that he is alleged to have had with the deceased. On the morning of the fatal event he was denied entry into his girl friend's house, while later at 9 p.m. 'Mamahlelebe denied him entry into the shebeen and could not even suffer him to use her phone in order to call a taxi instead referred him to go and wait outside for the taxis. He does not want to disclose anything regarding his whereabouts to Major Manamolela despite the apparent good rapport shown between him and her hence his insistence that he would rather be referred to her than sent to the Charge Office.
During the three weeks of remaining in hiding he was keeping the gun and the bullets with him. Asked why on parting with deceased he did not give back those bullets in the plastic bag he said he thought he forgot because of the effects of the drinks he had had.
Under cross examination accused adopted an attitude of fencing with the questions and not giving straight forward replies even when no adverse inference would necessarily follow from his replies.
13
In reference to characteristic features by which he could recognise the spot in the donga he replied "The donga there has a kind of a bend." "Are those characteristics confined to that spot, aren't there similar ones up and below that spot - ? I have never examined the donga" "You cannot exclude existence of similar features up or below the spot - ? I am saying I do not know if there are any other similar features".
Accused's attempt to dissociate himself from the events connected with deceased's death led him to making . inconsistent statements. Asked whether as far as he was concerned the highlight of his mission with 'Neko to the area around the donga at Ha Leqele was the pointing out of the place where picnics used to be held and the path that formerly cut across the donga he replied - ? To my knowledge the mission had been accomplished". Having admitted that the whole mission struck him as nonsensical however when asked "Didn't you ask 'Neko why engage in this pointless exercise - ? he replied "According to my police training I cannot ask that." But soon thereafter when asked "When you got to police office on return from the spot at Ha Leqele, while regarding yourself as innocent, did you ask 'Neko why you were being locked up - ? I had asked that at the beginning and was given no explanation" thus demonstrating that to suit his convenience this code of conduct to which he makes it appear he adheres at all costs, can and was at times breached.
Having vehemently rejected any suggestion that he confided in Major Manamolela yet he did not want her to fetch him from where he had been hiding, however to a question put by gentleman Lefu "Why didn't you tell police
14
about the threats and that some police were involved in making them - ? I did not know how to distinguish them." "You told Manamolela though - ? Yes" "You did not tell her where you rang from why - ? I did not trust her, I did not want to get into trouble" "You mean you could ring someone you do not trust about a thing of this kind - ? I rang her in her capacity as staff officer".
It thus remains a matter for conjecture what difference this makes. i.e. the capacity of a staff officer in the circumstances.
Again a point illustrating the breach of so-called impregnable wall existing between Seniors and juniors comes out in the following extract appearing at page 142 of the manuscript.
" Did you ask any of the police to charge or release you - ? No" "You were not bothered yet you regarded yourself as innocent - ? I was bothered hence I asked Letsie."
Accused strains to create an impression that Major Manamolela did not know where he was and he did not disclose to her this fact yet a conclusion to the contrary was not difficult to reach as appears from page 16 of the earlier ruling, to wit, "Mr. Pheko submitted that the fact that accused was denied an opportunity to be confronted with Major Manamolela, who is among Seniors, alleged to have known accused's whereabouts during the three weeks' period of his alleged disappearance should result in an adverse inference being drawn against the Crown for she would confirm accused's statement."
15
Having expressed no interest to know why deceased handed him the plastic parcel containing bullets it took accused an indirect question to supply the reason that was required in the first place. This is borne out in the following extract ad 144 of the manuscript
" Did deceased ask you to place bullets on you or on the vehicle - ? I said he gave them to me in the house to keep because his trek suit had no pockets."
Why does he give this reason now yet to an earlier question whether deceased's trek suit had pockets he said he did not know.
It is also highly unlikely that deceased was wearing a trek suit in view of the fact that when the body was identified it was still dressed in clothes in which the deceased was seen dressed in by his wife on 29th March 1985 see page 11 of the admitted P.E. record.
Another aspect of accused's story that is hard to believe relates to the two strangers who informed him of the deceased's death and details relating thereto. The strangers gave a description of the assassin that fitted with accused in almost all details i.e. history as ex-goal keeper of Rovers Football Club, fact that he is a policeman who was last seen in the company of the deceased and the fact that the assassin was wearing a grey suit. Regard being had to the probable time of the day i.e. about 7 a.m. at the end of March and to the fact that nowhere did accused indicate he had changed his clothing, it would be strange that the strangers' attention could not be drawn to accused's clothing as the possible suspect.
16
I have heard arguments and received very valuable sets of heads of arguments from both Counsel. As pointed out earlier I have already in part evaluated Crown evidence in the ruling that was given at close of Crown case.
The overall impression I have of the Crown witnesses is as follows:-
P.W.1 Sgt. Lerotholi struck me as a truthful witness who was candid and had no reason to fabricate about what accused told him. I have already indicated that reasons advanced by accused for this witness to implicate him falsely are not acceptable.
P.W.2 Lt. Letsie was firm in his evidence but wasted time by not answering questions direct. He behaved as if he entertained fears that every question put to him was a trap or a mine field calculated to blow him up unawares.
P.W.3 Lt. Matela struck me as truthful and having nothing to fabricate against the accused. Accused himself did not inform him about his absence from work nor did he account to him about the extra bullets he had.
P.W.4 Lt. 'Neko, as pointed out in the ruling earlier displayed no element of hostility to the accused. He struck me as truthful and I believe his account of what accused said to him.
P.W.5 W/0 Polanka except to say independent evidence shows that he is the one who fetched the body from the donga his position is well covered in the ruling I made
earlier. Common among them though was their forgetfulness
17
of matters which could have been useful to the court. Non-use of a note book is the bane of police investigating crime.
In agreeing with Mr. Lenono's submission that accused manifests himself as a consumate inventor of the most improbable stories, I would hasten to refer to a Swaziland Appeal Court decision i.e. APP. No 21/85 Zunku vs The Queen (unreported) where Maisels J.P. quoting Lord Devlin in Broahurst vs REX 1964 A.C. 441 at 457 said: " ---- Save in one respect, a case in which an accused gives untruthful evidence is no different from one in which he gives no evidence at all ........(if) on the
proved facts two inferences may be drawn about the accused's conduct or state of mind, his untruthfulness is a factor which the jury can properly take into account as strengthening the inference of guilt."
It is common cause that the Crown's case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is of importance in approaching such evidence that its cogency is determined by the cumulative effect of indepent items which point to the same conclusion. See Harris Criminal Law 20th Ed. 457.
When making such determination it is essential not to overlook the objective facts which emanated from the evidence for they are
ultimately the ones which may shed light as to the guilt or otherwise of the Accused.
Accused and deceased were not enemies. Indeed deceased as pointed out by Mr. Pheko entrusted his safety in the hands of the accused to drive his car while he himself was too drunk to do so.
The two were in each other's company drinking beer.
18
When the two were last seen nothing shows there was any animosity between them.
The cause of death is said to be subdural haemorrhage but as to the objective findings determined on independent medical evidence there is nothing to go by except hearsay evidence, to wit, "Deceased is said to have been shot dead on the 30th March 1985". The nature of the evidence being circumstantial this does not cast any light as to who shot the deceased dead.
There does not seem to be any motive why accused could have killed deceased because even granting that he said that he quarrelled with deceased at Agricultural College nothing was advanced as to the probable cause of such quarrel.
Account should also be taken of the fact that evidence revealed that none of the police gave a charge to the accused. It was also a matter that caused the Court great concern that it was not known who was the investigating officer in this case: for as shown ad page 14 of my ruling it was pointed out that " As effectively shown, both in cross-examination and during addresses, there were some appalling inconsistencies and strange features in the conduct of police investigation of this case. I use the word 'investigation* guardedly because none came forward saying he either was an investigator of this case nor that he knew who was except W/O Polanka whose evidence has been ....... found to be worthless in this regard."
No evidence has been adduced to support the version that the gun before Court is the one which was used to kill the deceased. No evidence has been adduced to show that any one of the bullets handed to accused by Mokhele was used in the killing of the deceased. The matter is compounded by the fact that accused
19
when he surfaced had more bullets than he had been given. He gave an explanation as to how he acquired them and there does not seem to be any basis for rejecting it. Another matter, if one can indulge oneself some speculation, is why would not the accused after firing the "one shot that killed the deceased" and being possessed of eight bullets more discard all the excess of bullets save to replace the fired one with one of those in order to maintain the number that was issued to him by Mokhele in the first place. To return to the charge, there is no evidence adduced by the Crown to show
how deceased met his death nor the nature of the weapon for that matter.
Having said all this in evaluating the evidence I came to the conclusion that accused indeed uttered the words "I have removed someone from the way, one dog has died from the bullet" and the other related words namely that "I parted with deceased at this spot" pointing at a place at Ha Leqele.
But it is to be observed that while the fact that a person confesses his guilt of the offence affords the strongest possible proof thereof, nevertheless evidence of oral confession of guilt should be received with great caution for as appears in The Law of Evidence in South Africa by Scoble 3rd Ed. 250.
" ....... the statements, although actually made as deposed to, may be false, for the prisoner, appressed by the calamity of his situation, may be induced by motives of hope or fear to make an untrue confession, and the same result may have arisen from a morbid ambition to obtain an
20
infamous notoriety ..... or from anxiety to screen ....... a comrade.......... or it may even be the result of the delusion of an overwrought and fantastic imagination".
Accused had spent not less than three weeks in hiding after he was last seen in company of deceased no doubt he was anxious about the calamity of his situation. He had been straining at the leash to communicate with Major Manamolela yet could not come out of hiding and speak to her face to face despite that he knew that she was the one who knew the nature of his mission, for fear that she might betray him. C.F. R vs Mlambo 1957(4) S.A. 727 AD at 738 where Malan J.A. : said
" An accused's claim to the benefit of a doubt when it may be said to exist must not derive from speculation but must rest upon a reasonable and solid foundation created either by positive evidence or gathered from reasonable inferences which are not in conflict with, or outweighed by, the proved facts of the case."
So the fact that the vehicle in which deceased was last seen travelling in has disappeared cannot rule out a possibility that whoever has driven it away had to do with deceased's death. See Rex vs BLOM 1939 AD 188. "The inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all proved facts. If it is not, the inference cannot be drawn."
" 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."
The highest water mark of the crown evidence is a strong indeed very strong suspicion that the accused caused the death of the deceased. I find this suspicion well
21
grounded and reasonable. But it amounts to no more than a suspicion.
Accused is given a benefit of doubt, acquitted and discharged.
My assessors agree.
M. L. LEHOHLA
ACTING JUDGE
12th February, 1987
For the Crown : Mr. Lenono
For the Defence : Mr. Pheko
