14 [19] The appellant consistently denied the allegations and when asked by his counsel specifically why the complainant would implicate him falsely, he proffered two possible explanations. In Van der Watt v S [2010] 3 All SA 434 (SCA) para 16 this court stated: ‘(I)t is trite that an accused may tender an explanation why he believes he has been falsely implicated and it may turn out another reason unknown to him exists or is more probable. The accused is called upon to speculate, not testify on a matter of fact. In such circumstances, he cannot be blamed if it turns out that his explanation is found to be wanting.6 It would therefore be wrong to criticise the appellant if it turned out that this was not the reason. What is important is that the appellant was truthful when he relayed the incident to the court and the incident cannot be ruled out as a possible reason why the complainant laid false charges against him.’ In my view, when the appellant’s version is compared to the evidence adduced by the state witnesses, there was no justification for the rejection of his evidence. [20] It follows, on either approach, the conviction cannot be sustained. For even if all of the evidence was properly before the trial court, it did not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 1. The appeal is accordingly upheld. 2. The conviction and sentence are set aside. _______________________ Z L L TSHIQI JUDGE OF APPEAL