Windhoek
Judgment in the trial in which a Rehoboth resident is accused of raping two women on different dates is expected on November 25 in the Windhoek High Court.
The accused also faces a charge of having mutilated the vagina of one of the victims.
On Monday Judge Dinah Uusiku said she would deliver judgment after closing arguments from the State and the defence.
State Advocate Cliff Lutibezi asked the court to convict Franklin Savage of attempted rape on the first charge.
It is alleged he raped the victim, who is now deceased, near the Rehoboth Primary School on November 28, 2010.
However, because the complainant died before she could testify, Lutibezi conceded the State did not prove penetration and as such he asked the court to convict Savage on a charge of attempted rape.
According to Lutibezi, two witnesses corroborated each other that they heard the complainant scream and saw Savage get up from her and pull up his pants.
He further said the accused’s version must be rejected as false beyond reasonable doubt as it is highly improbable.
Savage testified that he met the complainant at the school and she agreed to have sexual intercourse with him.
As they had no place to go, they were going to do it in the bush next to the road. But, he said, when the witnesses shone their vehicle’s light on them the complainant became shy and started to cry, which was when he started to walk away.
Lutibezi said this does not make sense as he claimed he already, on a previous occasion, had a sexual encounter with the complainant and people knew about them, so the complainant had no reason to cry rape if she was found having consensual sex with the accused. The defence counsel of Savage argued that the State failed to prove the commission of any offence in respect of the first charge.
According to Bronell Uirab, the State witnesses contradicted each other to the extent that their evidence could not be relied upon.
He said it seemed their evidence was tailored to suit the State’s case.
He said the State failed to prove rape or attempted rape and asked the court to acquit Savage. On the charge of kidnapping the second victim, Lutibezi argued that this was corroborated by the accused’s own evidence that he picked her up and carried her to the post office where they had sexual intercourse.
This victim was allegedly drugged by Savage and taken to the post office where he allegedly inserted a beer bottle in her anus and mutilated her vagina by cutting it with a sharp object.
He faces two charges of rape, one charge of kidnapping and one charge of using certain means to stupefy or overcome a female for immoral purposes.
He further faces one charge of attempted murder and one count of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Savage admitted to cutting or stabbing the complainant in her vagina, but said that it was due to self-defence after the complainant demanded money for sexual favours and attacked him.
Uirab asked the court to acquit Savage on all the charges he faces and to only convict him of assault with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm for the stabbing or cutting of the complainant’s vagina, which he admitted.
Lutibezi submitted that the State’s version of events carries a high degree of probability and asked the court to convict Savage as charged on all counts except for count one, on which he should be convicted of attempted rape.