UPDATE: Defence takes on State witness in effort to secure bail

MATOME Jonas Dikgale appeared in Palm Ridge Magistrate’s Court on October 8 for the continuation of his formal bail application.

He stands accused of the attempted murder of his estranged wife after reportedly attempting to strangle her in her Meyersdal home.

Dikgale made his application on October 2 where he appealed to the court to grant him R5 000 bail in a sworn affidavit read by his defence.

The State called a witness, the investigating officer Det Sgt Molefi Phadu, who the State questioned.

The case was postponed to give Phadu more time to investigate on recommendation by the court.

The State reopened their questioning of Phadu asking him the questions the court wanted more clarity on in the previous appearance. Phadu investigated the nature of the previous convictions that the accused has against him.

According to Phadu there were three contraventions of the Road Traffic Act that Dikgale was convicted for.

In one case he was given a warning, in the second a fine and in the final case he paid an admittance of guilt fine.

The State asked Phadu to elaborate on his investigations into the company where Dikgale is a director.

In his testimony Dikgale indicated that there are three directors of the company and that the company was dully operational.

The defence had their opportunity to cross-examine Phadu.

Before starting their cross-examination, the defence brought an application against the State reopening their questioning after previously having indicated that they are done with their questioning of the witness.

In his defence

The defence began their questioning with the cases against the applicant that Phadu said was withdrawn.

Specifically the defence asked about one case where Phadu indicate the complainant, Dikgale’s wife, claimed she was threatened with a firearm.

The defence asked whether anyone was informed of the occurrence and Phadu said that he does not know.

The defence questioned Phadu’s correlating the previous cases against the accused with violence proposing the legal principal of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

Phadu indicated that he does not know how things are done but he believes it indicates violence.

The court asked clarification as to whether these cases involved prosecution, or was withdrawn at the police station.

Phadu stated that the cases did involve prosecution.

The defence then brought a form indicating that Dikgale was in fact the only director of his company.

Phadu stated that in his interview with Dikale’s partners they indicated that there were three directors of the company which the defence disputed.

In a sworn affidavit collected by Phadu the defence indicated that the partners claimed that Dikgale was an integral part of the company and that his absence could cause the company to close down.

Not a flight risk

The defence asked Phadu if he was aware of basic bail conditions.

They reminded him of the conditions and reminded him that Dikgale conformed to all of the conditions by appearing in court when he was supposed to.

The defence then asked Phadu whether he considers the accused a flight risk.

Phadu repeatedly indicated that if bail was granted they can’t ensure the victim’s safety and the defence stated they weren’t asking about the safety aspect.

Phadu did admit he does not consider Dikgale a flight risk.

The defence asked Phadu about the injuries sustained by the victim and he said that he saw injuries to the head, neck and thigh of the victim.

The defence had Phadu read the report of the doctor and Phadu repeatedly indicated that he cannot read the writing, or understand the language of the doctor.

The State objected at the repeated questioning into the injuries, stating that Phadu has indicated what he knows and that he doesn’t understand the doctor’s language use.

The case has been postponed to October 15.

Dikglae remains in custody.

The defence will resume their cross-examination on the day.

ALSO READ:

WATCH: Alleged attempted murderer applies for bail