20 which she testified that she had refused to have sexual intercourse with him. It does not explain her apparent fear whilst in a public place as against her being resolute when she was on her own in her mother’s house. The complainant described the place where the appellant parked the bakkie and raped her as being close to the container at which they sold electricity. It appears from the complainant’s evidence under cross-examination that the location at which she was raped was also the location at which she boarded the motor vehicle in order to be transported to school. The complainant’s mother, in insisting that the complainant was the first to be collected on the transport route, testified that she sometimes saw the appellant collecting her child at a spot close to her house. It does seem strange that the appellant would have chosen a visible spot at which to perpetrate the rape. [51] It is important to consider the complainant’s testimony that she had bled as a result of being raped and that as a result there was blood on her panties. The complainant’s mother testified that she used to wash the complainant’s panties and that she had not observed any blood on her daughter’s underwear. The complainant, on the other hand, said that she used to wash her own panties. This contradiction is material and cannot be explained away simply on the basis that the bleeding was only relevant in relation to whether the complainant was penetrated and that this aspect had been put beyond doubt by the medical evidence, which I have said is neutral. The absence or presence of blood on the panties is material and is relevant in relation to credibility. It is also no answer to say that on this aspect the appellant’s evidence should be preferred above that of her mother. [52] The regional magistrate, whilst ostensibly recognising that a witnesses’ demeanour is not an infallible guide to the truth, nevertheless placed great store on the complainant’s demeanour. In the past, counsel representing accused were often apprehensive about findings on demeanour that were intended as a shield against appeals. In President of the Republic of South Africa & others v South African Rugby Football Union & others [1999] ZACC 11; 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC), the Constitutional Court, said the following (para 79): ‘The advantages which the trial court enjoys should not, therefore, be over-emphasised “lest the appellant’s right of appeal becomes illusory”. The truthfulness or untruthfulness of a witness can rarely be determined by demeanour alone without regard to other factors