5 transport in winter. The appellant then offered to take the complainant to school even when the mother would not be paying. He denied that he had lent the television set to the complainant specifically. According to him he allowed the complainant’s family to use it together with a wardrobe and a coal stove which were in the house that they were renting from his in-laws. He explained that his visit to the complainant’s home in the mother’s absence was to inspect the house for maintenance purposes as he had always done, on behalf of his ‘in-laws’. [10] Mr Clifford Moepeng testified that in 2006 he used to share transport to and from school with the complainant. According to him the appellant’s routine when fetching the children was always to fetch two other children first, P and M, from Rooiwal, then himself, and only thereafter, the complainant, then they would proceed to school. The State also led the evidence of police officer Mr Ernest Monname who recorded the complainant’s police statement. Mr Monname testified in relation to the spot or place where the sexual intercourse took place in the appellant’s van. His evidence was that the complainant had told him this took place on the front seat of the van. [11] In convicting the appellant the magistrate acknowledged the discrepancies in the evidence tendered by the State, particularly the contradictions in the evidence of the complainant, her mother and Dr Gunaselva. But he was satisfied that the evidence led constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had had sexual intercourse with the complainant. [12] Before I consider the specific grounds on which the appeal is brought it is necessary to clarify the issues on appeal as I see them. Although, in the court a quo all the material elements of the charge against the appellant had to be proved, it does not appear that the evidence that the complainant had been sexually penetrated was in serious dispute. When Dr Gunaselva started giving evidence he was led by the prosecutor on the injuries and resultant scars on the complainant’s private parts. The doctor had observed five scars on the complainant’s genitalia. He had also observed and recorded in the medico legal report (J88) that the complainant’s hymen was not intact. His conclusion, as recorded in the J88, was that the scars were ‘compatible with remote sexual penetration’.