Court gets soft on genital-yanker’s fine

Image courtesy of stock.xchng

Image courtesy of stock.xchng

A Limpopo woman’s R3 000 fine for locking up her unfaithful husband and pulling his testicles until he bled has been replaced on appeal by a suspended sentence.

North Gauteng High Court Judges Ronel Tolmay and Cynthia Pretorius confirmed the conviction of 27-year-old Gladys Chauke on a charge of assaulting her husband Amos Mashimbye with the intent to seriously injure him, but set aside her fine of R3 000 or 12 months’ imprisonment.

Chauke was instead given a suspended sentence of a R1 000 fine or three months’ imprisonment on condition she was not again convicted of assault in the next five years.

Chauke lured her husband into his girlfriend’s home, locked him up and threw away the key after earlier catching them having sex.

She hit him on the head with a mug and a wooden spoon, bit him on the shoulder and grabbed him by the testicles and pulled. Chauke’s grip on him was so tight that his girlfriend had to pry her fingers off his private parts, whereafter he jumped through a window and fled with bleeding testicles.

Mashimbye had to have stitches in his private parts and spent a night in hospital after his ordeal.

He later told a Saselamani magistrate he did not know why Chauke had attacked him so viciously that a doctor had to patch up his private parts.

He denied her claims that she had grabbed his private parts in self-defence after he hit and throttled her.

He testified that his wife had told him she wanted to “discipline a whore” and wanted to kill him “so that she could leave him”.

According to Chauke, her husband had attacked her and told her he did not have time for nonsense after she asked him to talk about their problems.

The magistrate defended the sentence, saying Chauke had planned the attack and battered her husband in a vicious, cruel and degrading manner on “very delicate and intricate parts of human anatomy”.

Judge Tolmay said the incident had occurred as a result of a love triangle and could be referred to as a crime of passion, which was to be regarded as a mitigating factor.

She said the sentence imposed induced a sense of shock and the magistrate should have given more weight to the accused’s emotional state and to the fact that the assault itself was not of a serious nature.

today in print