Pretoria - In A case, described by a judge as “the ultimate betrayal of a trust relationship” committed by a father against his 9-year old son, who had accused him of rape, the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, rejected the father’s version that the child had lied.
The father was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for the rape, but has appealed his conviction.
It was a case of the father’s word against that of his son, with the court concluding that the child was an honest witness and the father a liar.
The rape occurred when the child visited his father at his father’s home in Heidelberg.
The appellant (father) lives alone in the house, from where he sells alcohol. In December 2016, his son visited him at his house and both of them slept in the same room and bed.
The child testified that his father undressed him before closing his mouth. He then slapped him across his face before he raped him anally.
The child reported the rape to his father’s friend who then took him to his maternal grandfather’s home. On his arrival at his grandfather’s place, the child told his aunt, whom he refers to as his sister, about the rape.
His grandfather took him to the clinic. He was medically examined and the police came to see him.
He was also interviewed by a social worker who drafted a report which was admitted into evidence.
While there were no major injuries to the child’s private parts, it was recorded that there was a “redness on the orifice”.
The father, who confirmed that the child was his biological son, told the court they had gone to bed at 2am, after having closed his liquor business. He confirmed the child’s version that he had undressed him.
But he explained he did that because his neighbour had told him the child “had pimples on his shoulders” and he wanted to check.
The father said they had never slept in the same bed; the child had slept on the bed and he on the couch.
The father denied he had raped the child and accused the grandfather of telling the child to lie, as the grandfather did not like him (the father).
The prosecution contended that the father’s version, that he was falsely implicated, was far-fetched. The father, however, insisted that he was innocent. He also questioned why the incident was reported to the police only two days later.
But the court noted that the child did tell his father’s friend immediately about what had happened.