8 falsely implicate the appellant, and secondly, because the state had failed to call Ramseroop’s wife, who was clearly a material witness regarding the circumstances under which the appellant had brought the vehicle to their home, to testify. [16] The fact that Ramseroop’s wife did not testify does not mean that Ramseroop’s evidence was inadequate to prove the case against the appellant on this count. When Ramseroop, before his arrest, spontaneously told Sergeant Govender that the appellant had brought the vehicle to his home, neither he nor the appellant were suspects. He had no reason to implicate the appellant at that stage. The appellant was wellknown to him and had also provided him with an income from the vehicles which he had brought for repairs. The magistrate analysed the evidence carefully before concluding that the appellant was guilty on this count. I have no reason to reject her reasoning on this aspect. It follows that the appellant was correctly convicted on this count. [17] I return to the circumstances leading to the discovery of the Hilux and of the metal box. It is common cause that after Ramseroop was taken into custody on 19 February, the police at Tongaat assaulted him severely. The assaults included torture through the use of electric shock treatment. Ramseroop’s uncontested evidence was that he received a ‘terrible hiding’ on the evening after he had been taken into custody. Thereafter assaults continued until the morning of the 21st when he took the police to his home to show them where he had hidden the metal box. Regrettably, the magistrate did not investigate the extent, frequency and duration of his unlawful treatment. Ramseroop’s cursory crossexamination on this aspect was aimed only at establishing his