20 would tell them. According to the argument he must have done that to protect someone who was anyway not suspected of anything by anybody. It is much more likely that he told the uncle the truth. Moreover, the whole B family, except possibly A, was clearly sympathetic towards the appellant and did not create the impression of trying to have an innocent man convicted.’ [46] Faced with the competing versions of the complainant and the appellant, the regional magistrate, and thereafter the High Court, concluded that the appellant’s version, when viewed against the totality of the evidence adduced, as well as against the inherent probabilities, was false. Each of these courts correctly adopted a holistic approach to the evidence and I am not persuaded that either court misdirected itself on the evidence before it, nor that its conclusion was wrong. [47] It follows from the above that the appellant’s appeal against his convictions on the first four counts must fail. Application in terms of s 322(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 [48] Before this Court, the respondent applied for an amendment, in terms of s 322(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, of the appellant’s convictions on ten counts of contravening s 14(1)(b) of Act 23 of 1957 to 10 convictions of indecent assault and also, should this application be successful, for an increase in the sentences imposed on the appellant by the regional court and confirmed by the high court. The gist of the argument advanced by counsel for the state was that, right from the start, the power relationship between the appellant and the complainant was totally unequal because of the complainant’s age in relation to that of the appellant (who was nearly 28 years older than the complainant) and the relationship of friendship and trust that existed between the appellant and the B family. With reference to each count, counsel attempted to illustrate that, although the complainant may have appeared to have consented to the sexual act in question, this was not voluntary consent. Counsel relied in this regard on the evidence of the clinical psychologist who had treated both the complainant and A after Mr and Mrs B had become aware of what had happened. The psychologist testified that a child who becomes sexually involved with an adult in this manner is traumatised and, from the outset, is in the position of a victim. As such, the child is paralysed and one of the common reactions is that the child ‘disassociates’ and places an emotional distance between himself or herself and the adult. Where the