18 ‘relative’. Dr Gunaselva who was called by the State was ‘absolutely sure’ that the complainant and her mother had told him that the perpetrator was a relative. The contradictions between State witnesses about whether a ‘relative’ was identified as the perpetrator cannot in my view simply be ignored on an assumption that a ‘misunderstanding probably crept in’. There was no evidence of a misunderstanding. The contrary is true. Dr Gunaselva was absolutely certain that this had been imparted to him by both the complainant and her mother. The complainant, even though she understood the word ‘relative’ a little more restrictively than its actual meaning, nevertheless was clear that the appellant was not her relative. This is yet another unsatisfactory aspect of the State’s case. It bears mentioning that Dr Gunaselva’s evidence did not prove conclusively that the complainant had been raped, only that this was possible. [46] There are further material inconsistencies and contradictions that impact on the strength of the State’s case. Under cross-examination the complainant was quite clear that she was raped at the back of the bakkie. She explained how she had been taken from the passenger cab to the rear of the vehicle where the appellant had undressed her. The complainant was then confronted with the statement she made to the police, in which the following appears: ‘I [got] into his van in front seat and I sat on passenger’s side and he pulled me next to him. And undressed my panty and he continued having sex with me without proposing any relationship with me.’ The complainant testified that when she made the statement she had spoken to the policeman in Setswana and that the policeman was Setswana speaking. Her response to the apparent contradiction between her evidence in court and the statement she made to the police was to insist that she had told the police what she had told the court. [47] After her earlier testimony that the appellant had undressed her, as set out in the preceding paragraph, the complainant testified that she had undressed herself. Confronted with this contradiction, she said that her earlier statement in court had been a mistake and that she had forgotten what had in fact occurred.