Cape Town - Acting Judge Alan Maher on Monday said that on October 24, he would hand down judgment to determine whether Moyhdian Pangkaeker is guilty of the rape, murder, kidnapping and mutilation of 8-year-old Tazne van Wyk.
This follows Pangkaeker’s lawyer, advocate Saleem Halday’s final submissions to the court for his client to be acquitted of all charges.
Halday argued that the evidence of State witnesses was “unreliable”, “uncorroborated” and “improbable”.
After going through the alleged inconsistencies of each witness, most of whom gave damning testimony of Pangkaeker’s alleged crimes, Halday said: “There is an overwhelming desire by all and sundry that this accused must be found guilty of an offence.
“This accused is in the media, there is a public outcry and public pressure, but when you look at the evidence as it is and all the problems I’ve raised, it is my respectful submission that the quality of the State’s evidence, even if we reject the evidence of the accused, does not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt,” Halday said.
However, he conceded that “Mr Pangkaeker, did not impress as a good witness, unfortunately”, and said his client told him that he had been assaulted in prison, and this is why his testimony was inconsistent.
Halday said the 57-year-old had given an explanation of how he came to be with Tazne, what happened to her and who was responsible for the murder.
He argued that Pangkaeker’s explanation of how his DNA was found under Tazne’s skin was “plausible”.
He further argued that the State did not give enough evidence on the rape and mutilation charges to secure a conviction.
“The body was left from February 7 to 19, 2020, before being discovered. Anything could have happened during this time.
“No sharp object capable of cutting off a hand was found in the possession of the accused,” Halday said.
Halday said that if the court rejected Pangkaeker’s version and accepted the State’s circumstantial evidence on Tazne’s murder, it should satisfy itself that this evidence passed the test that the only inference to be drawn was that which the State alleged.
If not, “he ought to be acquitted of these charges, too.”.