The State has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against a man they charged for biting a police constable’s ear off late last year. The now free man, Thuto Maduke had been charged with a single count of grievous harm after he allegedly chewed off a police officer’s left ear flap. The incident took place at Gathwane police post on August 29, 2022.

During trial, Maduke pleaded not guilty to the particular charge. It was the State’s case that on the fateful day, the police officer and his colleague were going about their usual duties when one Onkagile Kholoma walked into the police post to report Maduke for the theft of his properties.

Maduke and his girlfriend were subsequently brought in for questioning.

It was the State’s case that during the questioning process, the couple was questioned separately. Maduke waited outside holding their infant child whilst his girlfriend was being questioned.

After her questioning, the accused was invited into the office and the questioning was conducted by officers on duty. The police say during the questioning Maduke lost his temper and slapped one of the male police officers in the face and continued to punch him.

During the fight, the officer managed to bind Maduke’s hands to restrain him. Instead, Maduke managed to free himself and bit off the police officer’s left ear flap. At this point a female police officer screamed for help, the other officers came in and claimed they found the accused holding a brick, which at the time was used as a door stopper. They disarmed him of the brick.

It was further the State’s case that Maduke tried to escape through a window but the police officers caught and restrained him. He was finally arrested.

The officer, who was bleeding profusely at the time, was then taken to Goodhope Primary Hospital for medical attention.

A senior medical officer who attended to the police officer at the hospital also testified that he attended to the officer on the day. He further told the court that the patient was missing part of his ear flap.

The medical officer further told the court that he could not re-attach the earpiece because it had lost its vitality.

For the defence, Maduke testified and called a single witness. Maduke told the court that when the police questioned him about the groceries he was accused of stealing he told them he did not steal them but rather that he bought them with the monies he made from selling cigarettes.

He says the police did not buy his story and told him “to stop wasting their time”. He told the court that the officer then hit him with a baton and he tried to open the door to escape. He said the police then stopped him and asked him whether he was fighting to which he says he told them he was not. He says the police continued to assault him and as he tried to escape the attack from the officers, office furniture was tossed around. He says he then tried to escape through the window but he was restrained and arrested by the officers.

Passing judgment, Lobatse Magistrate Gofaone Morweng noted that the legal question before court was whether the accused caused grievous harm to the complainant by biting off part of his ear flap.

“It is not in dispute that the complainant suffered permanent injuries characterised by the permanent loss of part of his left ear flap. The prosecution attributes the particular injury to the accused person as having caused same during his physical attack on PW1 (police officer),” the judgment reads in part.

“The nature of PW1’s injuries is contained in Exhibit A, which is a medical report form which was prepared by PW4. Under cross-examination, the accused asked him whether he noted any other injuries on PW1’s body and he stated that he did not note any as he was concerned with re-attaching his ear. I find that the particular question was relevant because PW1 testified that before the accused bit off his ear, he had also bit his left thumb. The said information was required to show consistency in the prosecution case. The accused further questioned the same witness whether his findings established that the complainant’s ear flap was lost due to being cut off with teeth and he responded that he only relied on what he had been told by the complainant precisely that he had been bit on the ear. This cast doubt on the prosecution’s case on whether the ear flap was cut off as a result of the human teeth bite force or by any other object,” the Magistrate noted in his judgment.

According to the Magistrate, there is a lack of coherence in the prosecution case pertaining to what could have prompted the accused person to attack the complainant if at all he ever did.

“It defies logic that the accused person could have gone into a police station and started a brawl. What is, however, apparent from the accused person’s defence is that he was subjected to some form of brutality,” the Magistrate noted.

The Magistrate also noted that some of the State witnesses were not convincing, and they probably participated in the assault of the accused person as they had an interest in the matter.

“The probable version before this court remains that of the accused person. His evidence paints a picture in which he was subjected to police brutality and he did not appear to have rehearsed his testimony and so was his witness,” the Magistrate further said.

In the end, the court ruled that the State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and freed the man.