Ruling In Patlakwe Rape Case Set For December

By Oliver Modise
Correspondent | Monday November 24, 2008 00:00

 

Responding to Patlakwe's lawyer, Basimane Bogopa, Molobe said that at this stage of the trial the state was not concerned with issues of evidence.  It is interested in the facts that have already been disclosed.

'To say that there is no case to answer on the basis of insufficient evidence will run counter to the spirit ad intent of the legislature,' said Molobe.
Molobe further pointed out that the state has been able to establish that the man involved in this case was Patlakwe. He said that both Patlakwe and the young girl had confirmed that there was a trip from Mankgodi to Lamila Lodge.
He pointed out that from the evidence of the girl, she was forced to have sex by Patlakwe while they were at the lodge.

'The evidence before court calls for an explanation from the accused,' said Molobe. He further indicated that there was a medical report from the doctor who examined the girl, showing that there was sexual intercourse.
He said that all the time the relationship between Patlakwe and the young girl's family was cordial until the alleged rape.

Molobe said that throughout the trial, Patlakwe's lawyer told the girl that if his client was called to give his defence, he would prove to the court that he tried to have sex with her but failed.However, this prompted Bogopa to interrupt accusing Molobe of trying to mislead the court. Bogopa said that it has never been suggested that Patlakwe failed in trying to have sex with the girl'It was put to her that there was an agreement that there shall be sex, hence the trip to the lodge,' said Bogopa.

Bogopa said he interjected to put the record straight adding that when Patlakwe and the young girl were in the room, she changed her mind about sleeping with him and they instantly left the lodge without engaging in sexual intercourse.
Earlier, Bogopa had submitted that the girl's evidence was unreliable because she at some point confirmed that she had lied in court or to the police.

Bogopa said the girl's sister had said that while at the bus rank with their mother, her younger sister told her before bursting into tears that Patlakwe had raped her. However, Bogopa said, her mother had denied that the two were ever with her at the bus rank and that as far as she was aware, her daughter never cried at the bus rank.
Bogopa argued that there were inconsistencies in the times related to when the girl's mother was told about the alleged rape.

Bogopa said that there was a contradiction in that the girl had told the police that when she got home, she told her father about the rape. Under cross-examination, she had denied telling her father about the alleged rape.

Bogopa maintains that the young girl's testimony cannot be relied on because she had proved to be an unreliable witness, more so that she had testified that when she got home, she could not tell her father about the incident because he was in a bad mood.
Bogopa said that, on the contrary, the young girl's father had said that on the day of the alleged rape, his daughter found her at home and he was not angry but in a happy mood.

Bogopa said that another contradiction was that the young girl had told the court that Patlakwe did not use a condom, arguing that the source of the contradiction was that the DNA tests on the young girl did not link Patlakwe to the rape.
Zvedi has announced she will make a ruling on the matter on 12 December.