TWENTY YEARS OF DIRECT IMPRISONMENT FOR RAPE
The Kuruman Regional Court has sentenced a 46-year-old man to 20 years of direct imprisonment, for the rape of his 44-year-old live-in partner at the joint household near Bankhara Bodulong, in Kuruman. The accused was charged with rape, according to the provisions of Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997. On the evening of the commissioning of the crime, the accused had arrived at their household and demanded that the victim cook him food.
He left their residence to visit his friend and they consumed alcohol, and upon his return to the household, the accused allegedly ate the food, thereafter, assaulted the complainant alleging that the victim had taken too long to prepare the food. It is alleged while assaulting the victim, the accused instructed her to collect some scissors and used the scissor to cut the victim’s private parts. The complainant alleges that the wound bled profusely, and the accused proceeded to rape the complainant.
According to the complainant, she cried during the rape and begged the accused to stop raping her, as she was in severe pain. The matter was reported to the police and the accused was arrested and remanded in custody, as the prosecution successfully opposed his bail application.
During the trial, Regional Court Prosecutor, Benise Bronkhorst, argued that the court should sentence the accused to the prescribed minimum sentence applicable that of life imprisonment. The reason was that the crime was heinous, as the accused did not only rape his victim, but he also violated her by inflicting grievous bodily harm upon the complainant. In aggravation of the sentence, Bronkhorst asked the court not to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentence. The state argued and emphasised the seriousness of the offence as well as the fact that these types of offences were not only prevalent but also on the increase.
The Regional Magistrate Lulamile Mdoda on sentencing the accused, said that the sentence of life imprisonment should be reserved for offenders that would have been sentenced to the death penalty, had such a sentence still existed. The Magistrate further provided that the accused person’s spent time in custody and the fact that he did not have previous convictions counted in his favour, and cumulatively counted towards substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. However, the heinousness of the crime was highlighted, and the Magistrate sentenced the accused to 20 year’s direct imprisonment.
