22 evidence. Some of the evidence might be found to be false; some of it might be found to be unreliable; and some might be found to be only possibly false or unreliable; but none of it may simply be ignored.’ Other than the statement that it should be expected that the appellant and his witness would show no discernable discomfort in their testimony because the appellant’s version is one of a bare denial of the facts alleged by the State, no sustainable basis is provided for rejecting their evidence. [55] Dambuza JA considered the three incidents upon which the complainant’s mother based her suspicions to be well-founded. It will be recalled that the complainant’s version in relation to each of these incidents cannot without more simply be rejected. [56] In any event the incidents in question are all circumstantial evidence in respect of which one should have regard to what was stated in the oft quoted passage R v Blom 1939 AD 188 at 202-203: ‘In reasoning by inference there are two cardinal rules of logic which cannot be ignored: (1) The inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the proved facts. If it is not, the inference cannot be drawn. (2) The proved facts should be such that they exclude every reasonable inference from them save the one sought to be drawn. If they do not exclude other reasonable inferences, then there must be a doubt whether the inference sought to be drawn is correct.’ [57] Even if one were to discount entirely the evidence of the appellant in respect of the three incidents, which in the present case one cannot do readily, the incidents in themselves do not lead to the ineluctable conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence with which he had been charged. [58] I am willing to accept that one or two shortcomings in the evidence of the complainant might be expected and forgiven. However, the lengthy catalogue of materially unsatisfactory aspects referred to above must redound to the benefit of the complainant. They cannot be replaced with the catalogue of excuses. In my view, for all the stated reasons, it follows that the State failed to prove its case beyond a