5 [7] Aggrieved by his conviction and resultant sentences, the respondent unsuccessfully applied for leave to appeal to the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria in terms of s 309B of the Criminal Procedure Act (the CPA). However, the respondent successfully petitioned the High Court for leave to appeal in terms of s 309C of the CPA. [8] The respondent was successful in his appeal to the High Court. As to the convictions, the High Court found that in relation to counts 4, 5 and 7 and having regard to the conspectus of the evidence led at the trial, these charges had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It then proceeded to consider whether the rape convictions on counts 1, 2 and 3 were sustainable on the evidence. In regard to counts 2 and 3, the High Court said that on the complainant’s evidence, which was corroborated by the medical evidence, she was neither anally nor vaginally penetrated by the respondent. The High Court decried the fact that no medical evidence by the doctor who had examined the complainant was presented at the trial to substantiate these counts. Relying on this court’s judgment in S v MM [2011] ZASCA 5; 2012 (2) SACR 18 (SCA) (para 24), it consequently set aside the respondent’s convictions on these two counts. It substituted the two convictions with sexual assault in contravention of s 5(1) of the Sexual Offences Act. 5 [9] In the event the High Court concluded that although the complainant’s evidence – approached with the necessary caution, given her tender age and the fact that in relation to the actual sexual acts she was a single witness – was not without blemish, it was nevertheless to be preferred to that of the respondent. Accordingly, it found that the regional magistrate’s rejection of the respondent’s version as false beyond a reasonable doubt could not be faulted. [10] With regard to the sentence on the conviction on rape, count 1 (namely, the intentional and unlawful insertion by the respondent of his penis in the complainant’s mouth), it is apposite to make reference to some of the passages in the High Court’s judgment which bear directly on the crucial issue raised in this appeal. When analysing the State’s evidence in relation to this count, the High Court said: 5 In terms of this provision, ‘a person ('A') who unlawfully and intentionally sexually violates a complainant ('B'), without the consent of B, is guilty of the offence of sexual assault.’