Delhi HC: Non-Proof of Hearing Notice Dispatch Doesn’t by Itself Show no Personal Hearing Was Given  ||  Delhi High Court: No Construction or Residence Allowed on Yamuna Floodplains, Even For Graveyards  ||  J&K High Court: Right to Speedy Trial Includes Appeals; Closes 46-Year-Old Criminal Case Due to Delay  ||  J&K High Court: Courts Must Not Halt Corruption Probes, Refuses to Quash FIR  ||  J&K&L HC: Matrimonial Remedies May Overlap, But Cruelty Claims Cannot be Selectively Invoked  ||  Delhi High Court: Customs Officials Acting Officially Cannot be Cross-Examined as of Right  ||  J&K&L HC: Second Arbitral Reference is Maintainable if Award is Set Aside Without Deciding Merits  ||  J&K&L HC: Gold Voluntarily Given to Customer is 'Entrustment'; Theft Excluded from Insurance Cover  ||  Delhi HC: Working Mothers Cannot be Forced to Bear Full Childcare Burden While Fathers Evade Duty  ||  J&K&L HC: Arbitral Tribunal Not a “Court”; Giving False Evidence Before it Doesn’t Attract S.195 CrPC    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved