On September 2 2016, the trial court imposed the following sentences: accused 1 was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in respect of murder, five years' imprisonment for defeating the ends of justice and 15 years for rape. The sentences in respect of defeating the ends of justice and rape were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in respect of murder. Accused 1’s effective sentence was 15 years' imprisonment.
Accused 2 was sentenced as follows: 12 years' imprisonment in respect of murder, five years' imprisonment for defeating the ends of justice and 10 years' imprisonment for rape. The sentences for defeating the ends of justice and rape were ordered to run concurrently with that in respect of the murder charge.Thus, the effective sentence in respect of the accused 2 was 12 years' imprisonment.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Pretoria, brought an appeal in terms of a 316B of the CPA against the sentences imposed on the accused. In the grounds of appeal, the DPP submitted that the sentences imposed were “too lenient and induced a sense of shock and therefore ought to be set aside”.
In considering an appropriate sentence for the two accused, the SCA made mention that “sight must not be lost of the gravity of each of the offences they have committed. These offences were committed in a brutal fashion, which exposed the deceased to an amount of suffering before her death".
"Considering the prevalence of violent crimes perpetrated on women and children, it is unsurprising that society demands the imposition of harsh sentences upon those who commit these monstrous offences as a form of retribution in the hope of deterring would-be offenders.”
Accused 1 was pregnant at the time that the vicious crimes were committed. This is what the court had to say in aggravation of her sentencing: “As a pregnant woman carrying life, the first respondent did not think twice about snuffing life out of the deceased.
"Once that had been achieved, she was ready to dispose of the deceased’s body in a neighbour’s pit toilet. When that proved impossible, she suggested that the second respondent dig a hole in which the deceased would be buried.”
The sentences of the trial court were set aside and replaced with the following: accused 1 is sentenced to life in prison for murder, five years for defeating the ends of justice and another life imprisonment for rape. Accused 2 was handed 23 years in prison for murder, five years for defeating the ends of justice and 23 years for rape.
The sentences imposed in respect of defeating the ends of justice and rape are to run concurrently with the murder sentence. The names of both accused persons were ordered to be entered into the Sexual Offenders register.
Judgment Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division, Pretoria v D.M.S and A.O.L (69/2022) [2023] ZASCA 65 (12 May 2023)
- Tina Hokwana, our new regular feature writer, is a legal practitioner who unpacks court judgments to provide you with insights on how family law works.
TINA HOKWANA | Appeals court imposes heavy sentences on duo who raped, murdered cousin (12)
Image: 123RF/EVGENYI LASTOCHKIN
The Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) has set aside lenient sentences imposed on cousins for the brutal rape and murder of their 12-year-old cousin.
The two cousins, 21-year-old female (accused 1) and 17-year-old male (accused 2), were arraigned in the Gauteng Division of the High Court on three charges – murder, defeating the ends of justice and rape.
They were accused and found guilty of the brutal rape and killing of their cousin while she was visiting them in KwaMhlanga, Mpumalanga. Accused 1 made an admission to a magistrate and acknowledged being present during the killing of the deceased but implicated accused 2 as the person who murdered the deceased.
Accused 2 made a statement to the magistrate admitting that he had raped and killed the deceased and concealed her body in a shallow grave after a failed attempt to throw her body into a neighbour’s pit toilet.
He, however, asserted that he committed the offences under duress, as accused 1 had threatened to kill him should he not commit the offences in question. The trial court rejected accused 2’s defence of necessity (based on the averment that accused 1 had coerced him to commit the offences) and convicted both accused persons on all the charges.
Free State man wanted for murders, rape caught nearly two years later
On September 2 2016, the trial court imposed the following sentences: accused 1 was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in respect of murder, five years' imprisonment for defeating the ends of justice and 15 years for rape. The sentences in respect of defeating the ends of justice and rape were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in respect of murder. Accused 1’s effective sentence was 15 years' imprisonment.
Accused 2 was sentenced as follows: 12 years' imprisonment in respect of murder, five years' imprisonment for defeating the ends of justice and 10 years' imprisonment for rape. The sentences for defeating the ends of justice and rape were ordered to run concurrently with that in respect of the murder charge.Thus, the effective sentence in respect of the accused 2 was 12 years' imprisonment.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Pretoria, brought an appeal in terms of a 316B of the CPA against the sentences imposed on the accused. In the grounds of appeal, the DPP submitted that the sentences imposed were “too lenient and induced a sense of shock and therefore ought to be set aside”.
In considering an appropriate sentence for the two accused, the SCA made mention that “sight must not be lost of the gravity of each of the offences they have committed. These offences were committed in a brutal fashion, which exposed the deceased to an amount of suffering before her death".
"Considering the prevalence of violent crimes perpetrated on women and children, it is unsurprising that society demands the imposition of harsh sentences upon those who commit these monstrous offences as a form of retribution in the hope of deterring would-be offenders.”
Accused 1 was pregnant at the time that the vicious crimes were committed. This is what the court had to say in aggravation of her sentencing: “As a pregnant woman carrying life, the first respondent did not think twice about snuffing life out of the deceased.
"Once that had been achieved, she was ready to dispose of the deceased’s body in a neighbour’s pit toilet. When that proved impossible, she suggested that the second respondent dig a hole in which the deceased would be buried.”
The sentences of the trial court were set aside and replaced with the following: accused 1 is sentenced to life in prison for murder, five years for defeating the ends of justice and another life imprisonment for rape. Accused 2 was handed 23 years in prison for murder, five years for defeating the ends of justice and 23 years for rape.
The sentences imposed in respect of defeating the ends of justice and rape are to run concurrently with the murder sentence. The names of both accused persons were ordered to be entered into the Sexual Offenders register.
Judgment Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division, Pretoria v D.M.S and A.O.L (69/2022) [2023] ZASCA 65 (12 May 2023)
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Related articles
Latest Videos