A woman who threw a bag of groceries at her father-in-law was vindicated after the KwaZulu-Natal High Court, sitting in Pietermaritzburg, overturned her conviction of assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm.
The court said that the incident was so minor that Sadia Rahim should not have even been convicted of common assault, let alone assault to do grievous bodily harm.
In fact, the judge said, the matter should have never even turned in court.
Rahim successfully appealed her conviction and subsequent sentence of a R5000 fine or five months imprisonment, wholly suspended for five years.
The basis of the charge was an incident which occurred on December 24, 2019, during which her father-in-law sustained an injury in the form of swelling to his right ankle.
The evidence was that Rahim lived in a garden cottage, adjacent to the home of her in-laws. She had alleged that she was locked in that unit and would receive food at the mercy of her husband, who is the complainant’s son.
Regarding the events leading up to the incident, the court was told that the father-in-law was at the entrance of the cottage where Rahim stayed, while she was in the kitchen, watching her husband unpacking groceries which he had just brought to her.
The evidence of the complainant was that whilst his son was in the process of unpacking the groceries, Rahim walked into the kitchen, looking upset. She asked “what is this” with reference to the grocery bags on the counter.
The husband replied that it was groceries and he said that he was busy packing it away. According to the father-in-law, Rahim then lifted the bag that was closest to her with both hands, supported it at the base and turned to face the doorway and hurled it at him. He said she told him “here you can have it”, while throwing the bag, which contained some tins, at him.
Rahim denied throwing the packet at or towards the complainant. Her evidence was that she was locked up and effectively kept prisoner by her in-laws. She said it was only after she posted a message on social media, calling for assistance, that a social worker intervened.
Whilst the appellant, in evidence, denied throwing a packet, her counsel conceded that she had thrown a grocery packet, but submitted that it was never her intention to assault the complainant in any manner whatsoever.
It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that even if the court did find Rahim to have been untruthful regarding the throwing of a grocery packet, such denial did not detract from the State’s failure to prove its case.
The court noted that there was no evidence before the lower court, which had convicted her, in respect of the issue of intention. The court said Rahim could only be found guilty of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm if there was evidence that she entertained foresight in respect of injuring the complainant.
The lower court earlier found that the appellant had picked up the packet of groceries containing cans, turned to the complainant, looked at him saying “Here, you can have it” and threw at him with the intention of causing him grievous bodily harm.
But the high court said on a charge of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, the question arises whether the State has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the required intent (to do grievous bodily harm).
That is a question of fact which must be decided on the basis of amongst others, the nature of the weapon used and in what manner it was used and the part of the body aimed at.
The court, however, could not find that Rahim had any intention to injure her father-in-law.
“Bearing in mind that the appellant did not know what was contained in the grocery packet, did not aim it at the complainant but at the doorway, and was not involved in an altercation of any sort with the complainant at the time of the incident, I am of the view that the assault is of such a trivial nature as to warrant the court ignoring it altogether,” Judge Johan Ploos van Amstel said.
Pretoria News