17 television set as well as to the waiver by the appellant of the complainant’s transport fees. [43] The evidence of the nurse, who saw the complainant at the clinic, was that the latter’s mother had brought her to the clinic saying that she suspected that ‘a certain man’, who transported her child to school, had raped her daughter. She provided bases for the suspicion. This communication took place in the presence of the complainant. All the while the complainant was crying. The complainant’s mother informed the nurse that she had put her suspicions to her child but that she had not been forthcoming. According to the nurse the mother informed her that the child just kept on crying without divulging anything. It was only after the mother was requested to allow the nurse to question the child alone that the complainant then informed her that the appellant had raped her in the back of the van which he used to transport her to school. It is necessary to take into account that, under cross-examination, the nurse testified that she gained the impression that the child was uncomfortable with her mother in attendance because she was ‘continuously crying’. From the nurse’s examination of the complainant’s vagina she concluded that there had been penetration. [44] The fact that the complainant’s mother, in her presence, had informed the nurse about the circumstances giving rise to her suspicions and her simultaneous identification of the appellant as the person she suspected of having raped her child, is not without significance in the overall assessment of whether the State had met the onus of proving the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It will be recalled that, according to the nurse the complainant was uncomfortable in her mother’s presence. In addition her mother had already subjected her to an interrogation and pressure. Even though the complainant’s mother left the room before the complainant then provided the nurse with a description of events, the power of suggestion by her mother cannot be discounted. [45] Under cross-examination the appellant’s legal representative sought to explore whether the complainant understood what the word ‘relative’ meant. She replied she understood the word to mean that it was a family member who was ‘not very close’. The complainant was adamant that the appellant did not qualify as a