17 [35] On the second night in Cape Town the appellant again asked for sexual intercourse and the complainant willingly complied. It was only after the complainant received a telephone call from a female relative on the following day that her attitude changed towards him. She became ‘very cheeky and she was not respectful’ and told him that she was no longer his makoti. [36] There were a number of arguments over the days which followed. During one of these the appellant ‘lost control’ and grabbed a mop handle with which he threatened the complainant. During their ensuing scuffle the handle broke and struck the complainant’s leg. He was so shocked and concerned about the complainant that he arranged for his sister-in-law to take her to a doctor for treatment (on two separate occasions). About two days after the second visit to the doctor the complainant ran away. [37] The appellant maintained that he had never assaulted the complainant with a belt. He only aimed the mop handle at her and it was because she wrestled with him that it broke and injured her. He never raped the complainant. His brother had never held her down so that the appellant could rape her. He never instructed anyone to keep her locked in the house during the day. The complainant never expressed the wish to return to school. He was puzzled by the complainant’s allegations against him. His testimony was that: