22 [46] The trial court also found that the appellant’s version of events leading up to the departure for Cape Town was not supported by the objective facts. The complainant had tried to escape from the appellant twice before being brought to Cape Town. On neither of these occasions had she willingly returned to the appellant. Not even the appellant suggested that she was content to be brought back to him by her male relatives. The trial court thus reasoned that it was highly improbable that the complainant would have willingly boarded a taxi for a destination completely unknown to her with a man who was still a virtual stranger, whom she had described to her mother as violent, within a day or so after having being forced to return to him. [47] The trial court accepted the complainant’s version of events after her arrival in Cape Town. Her evidence about the assaults and at least some of the rapes was corroborated by the findings of Dr Narula. The court pointed out that Dr Narula’s observation that the complainant’s leg wound was septic supported the latter’s evidence that she had not received any medical treatment, contrary to the assertions of the appellant and his sister-in-law. [48] It was also the trial court’s finding that if the complainant had indeed enjoyed freedom of movement at the appellant’s house in Phillippi, as he alleged, it was most improbable that, injured as she was, she would have gone to the lengths that she did to escape him at the first opportunity. Furthermore, if the appellant’s version was to be believed, the complainant could simply have told