|
Dismissing the bail application, Justice Chinhengo, said that Ntaletsang was convicted for rape by the magistrate in 2000 and the same judge dismissed his appeal against conviction and a 10-year sentence delivered on March 24, 2004. "In the application for leave to appeal the applicant must show that there are reasonable prospects of appeal. To grant leave when there are no reasonable prospects of success at the Court of Appeal is a serious misdirection," noted Justice Chinhengo. He said in the previous appeal, he analysed the magistrate's judgement and concluded that there were no chances for possible success. He also mentioned that the appellant raised two grounds relating to penetration and identification. He said it was the complainant's evidence that he had not seen Ntaletsang at Lekoko's place and he was the only stranger at the place. The evidence showed that she left Lekoko's place and went towards her home. Ntaletsang caught up with her and had a conversation with her but later attacked her. "He had a distinct scar on his right cheek and the complainant ably identified him. There was also the evidence of prosecution witnesses two and three who testified that after the complainant left, the accused took the same direction as her," said Justice Chinhengo. The second issue was whether penetration took place. "I highlighted that she was a 58-year-old woman at the time of the alleged rape and couldn't have mistaken that she was raped. What she said to her children and later reported to the police corroborated that she was sexually abused," he observed. He said despite the medical report, there was overwhelming evidence against Ntaletsang. He also agreed with chief state prosecutor, Rahim Khan's heads of arguments and submissions to the court. Justice Chinhengo noted that the appellant also informed the court that he was serving a 20-year sentence for the two rape cases. He was appealing against the conviction. "The second one was committed in January 2000, six months after he had committed another one. "It involved a different complainant and he has told the court that he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years. He therefore requested that I should consider the sentences for the sentences to run concurrently". The judge noted that it was inappropriate for Ntaletsang to raise that ground at this stage of his application for leave to Court of Appeal. He said the two sentences were distinct and involved two different places and victims. The first one occurred in August 1999 and the second one in January 2000. Justice Chihnengo ruled that no court would order for the sentences to run concurrently. He further stated that the appellant submitted that he cannot read and write and it was for that reason that he allowed Ntaletsang to say whatever he thought was relevant to his case. The appellant also told Justice Chinhengo that a fellow inmate prepared his application. However, he said, it was unnecessary to deal with matters not on record such as the claim that he was hired by the complainant to kill someone for a fee of P700. That, Ntaletsang claims, drove the complainant to report him for rape. The judge dismissed the appeal: "It is an afterthought and should be dismissed. There are no prospects for success and the application fails".
|
