SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

Lungisa Grifhs v The State - (01 Sep 2021)

Accused could only have been properly convicted, if the evidence of the single witness was clear and satisfactory in all material respects

Criminal

In facts of present case, on 28 November 2018, the appellant, Mr. Lungisa Grifhs, was convicted together with two of his erstwhile co-accused in the Regional Court for the Eastern Cape Region, on one count of murder read with the provisions of Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997. The Regional Court found substantial and compelling circumstances that warranted the imposition of a sentence less than the one prescribed in the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The Appellant was accordingly sentenced to 16 years imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The Appellant subsequently petitioned the Judge President of the Eastern Cape Local Division of the High Court, in terms of Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, for leave to appeal. The petition met with the same fate. Consequently, the Appellant approached present Court for special leave to appeal in terms of Section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act, 2013, against the dismissal of his petition for leave to appeal. The only issue on this appeal is whether there are reasonable prospects of success in the appellant’s appeal.

The Appellant was convicted on the evidence of a single witness, Mr Bavu. It is trite that the Appellant could only have been properly convicted if the evidence of the single witness was clear and satisfactory in all material respects. The Appellant contended that it was not reliable, as it was improbable and inconsistent with the admitted statement that the witness had made to the police. It suffices to say that, it appears that there are substantial unexplained contradictions between Mr. Bavu’s oral testimony and his written statement to the police.

Accordingly, without pre-judging the merits, present Court find that there are reasonable prospects of success on the appeal against both conviction and sentence. ‘The Appellants’ petition for leave to appeal in terms of Section 309 C of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 against both conviction and sentence is granted.’

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   CREDIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved