13 complainant’s silence about the incident. Regarding his visit to the complainant’s home he explained that he went there for routine inspection of the house. This was on a Saturday. On his own evidence it was only the third time he was visiting the house (the first and the second instance must be when he connected the power and fixed the window). Coincidentally he chose the third day of maintenance to be a Saturday when the complainant was alone at home. The probabilities favour the complainant’s version on this aspect as well. [31] It was put to the complainant that on that day the appellant found her in the company of ‘Ntulu or Makazulu’, a person who the complainant insisted she did not know. In cross-examination nothing was said to the complainant’s mother about ‘Ntulu or Makazulu’. Instead, in his evidence the appellant testified that he found the complainant in the company of Nangomeso. In my view Ntulu, Makazulu and Nagomeso were a fabrication designed to justify the appellant’s abnormal visit to the 12 year old complainant. [32] It was put to the complainant during cross examination that the appellant’s routine was to first pick up G and her sister from Rooiwal. The appellant’s evidence was that he would pick up ‘the witness, P and his sister’. Thereafter he would drive back to Mogareng Village to pick up O and lastly the complainant. O’s evidence was that the appellant first fetched P and M. It is also striking that O was only alerted in 2010 that he would have to testify at the trial, he could clearly recall that P, M and himself never missed a day of school in 2006, but he could not recall whether the complainant did miss some days at school. [33] Consequently, I agree that when all the evidence is considered there is no reasonable doubt that the appellant did have sexual intercourse with the 12 year old complainant. I would have dismissed the appeal. ______________________ N Dambuza Judge of Appeal