09 Mar 2022

A 43-year old man of Lepapa ward in Moshupa, Tshipa Nkwe has told Kanye magistrate, Mr Daniel Nkau, of his intention to call two witnesses. 

He is accused of having carnal knowledge of a 61- year-old woman of the same village without her consent between April 8 and 10, 2017.

Tshipa stated that between April 1 and 15, he was not in Moshupa, but at the lands, therefore he would call witnesses to support his case.

He said he heard that the police were looking for him on April 15 and that was when he contacted them.

On Tuesday, the magistrate declined to admit the accused’s written submission in support of his no case to answer application.

 “It is clear that you do not understand the essence of your submissions because here you only wrote reasons why you should not be taken to jail,” explained Mr Nkau.

Subsequently, the court proceeded to make a ruling concerning the three prosecution witnesses.

 The magistrate said the first witness, who was the victim, stated that on April 8, the accused person arrived at her home and demanded food. 

The court heard that after telling him that there was only porridge, the accused person changed the subject and said he wanted her.

She had further told the court that the accused person started chasing her around, undressed her and raped her when she fell to the ground.

The court also noted that after some days, the accused came again and pounced on her inside her room. He reportedly covered her mouth with his hand and proceeded to rape her.

In both incidents, the court heard, the accused person did not use protection. It was also noted that the victim did not report to the police, but instead told her children who reported the matter to the police three days after the last incident.

Magistrate Nkau said the second witness, the victim’s daughter, narrated that her mother told her the accused person raped her at night. She said on the night of April 14, the accused person arrived and knocked at the door but when no one opened for him, he forcibly opened and entered the house.

He reportedly went straight to the victim’s blankets and due to fear, no one screamed for help.

The court heard that the accused person ordered the second witness and her children to go to sleep, but she faked sleeping and hid under the bed.

 She noted that after a while the younger children requested to be taken outside to relive themselves, but the accused person told them to use the bucket that was inside the house, to which they declined.

She said when they eventually got outside, she took the chance to call the police. However, she told court that at the time the accused person had dragged her mother to the nearby bush and only let go after the police arrived.

Furthermore, the magistrate said the court also noted the evidence provided by the third witness, who was the investigating officer in the matter.

In his ruling, Mr Nkau said according to evidence brought before court, the complainant did not agree to the intercourse.

He said even though there was no explicit evidence that she was not agreeing, her conduct indicated that she was against it.

 “Why would she run away if she was in agreement. Why scream for help if she is agreeing?”

Further, he noted that the court established that the accused person was aware that the complainant was against the intercourse and that what he was doing was abominable by covering her mouth to prevent her from screaming.

 Consequently, he ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused person.

The case is scheduled for continuation on March 17. ENDS