Accused claims his cousin poured acid on herself

AN ACCUSED who allegedly threw drain acid at his cousin, causing second-degree burns to her face and body, claims her injuries were self-inflicted.

The accused, Itumeleng Bergman, appeared in the Kimberley Magistrate’s Court this week. He pleaded not guilty to a charge of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm (GBH).

The incident took place on August 18, 2024, following an argument over a blocked toilet.

State prosecutor Tumelo Mosetlho said a fight erupted between the accused and his cousin, Dora Bergman, after the accused cut a sewage pipe and was unable to fix the problem.

“The complainant sought someone to repair the toilet. She was agitated over the mess that was left in the yard. She called the accused to look at the faeces and urine protruding from the pipe. The accused asked her why he was always being blamed when things went wrong. An altercation ensued, where unpleasant words were exchanged. The complainant was caught off guard and did not expect the accused to act out in that fashion.”

He added that Dora later went to the washing line to hang up a blanket or sheet while the accused was busy putting away rubbish in the yard.

“The complainant had her back turned towards the accused. At that stage, they were not arguing. Suddenly, the complainant saw the accused making a motion as if he was throwing something in her direction. At first, she thought that the substance was water, but when it made contact with her skin, she experienced a burning sensation and she started screaming.” 

Mosetlho said a witness, Dorothy April, was enjoying a beer that Sunday morning when the commotion caught her attention.

“She witnessed the accused throwing the acid and saw how Dora took off her jacket and ran to the Day Hospital.” 

He added that both Dora and April disputed claims by the accused that Dora was selling alcohol to customers on the day of the incident.

“The accused stated that a person threatened to harm Dora and allegedly told her, ‘I am leaving, I will show you’. At that stage, the accused said he went to fetch the acid that was next to the toilet. His other version was that he went to put the acid away. He claimed that a struggle ensued, where Dora tried to grab the bottle out of his hand and the contents splattered on her, and she sustained injuries. It was not clear how it came about that Dora knew what was contained inside the bottle.”

He questioned why Dora would want to grab the bottle.  

“The accused said that before he could dispose of the bottle, Dora wanted to throw the acid at him. The accused asserted that as she grabbed the bottle, he covered the top of the bottle with his hand.” 

State: Accused's versions are ‘nonsensical’

Mosetlho said the accused also provided another “nonsensical” version of events under oath, claiming he had been asleep in the house when he heard Dora screaming.

“He went to investigate and noticed that the complainant was involved in an altercation with another person, who had previously threatened her. He noticed scratch marks on her neck. He proceeded to look for acid to prevent the person who had threatened her from using it on her.” 

Mosetlho added that the accused claimed he picked up a white Savannah bottle, which Dora grabbed from him.

“He purported that the contents were foaming and that she did not reply when he asked her what she was doing. At that stage, the foam was creating a cloud and was going up in fumes in the air. The accused indicated that he placed his hand to stop the acid from spilling out.”

Mosetlho questioned how the accused escaped injury if he had handled acid with his bare hand.

“He stated that he moved backwards to avoid being hit by the acid. He wanted to cover Dora and prevent the cloud of acid - that was raining down - from burning her. For some unexplained reason, the acid spilt on her thigh and knee caused a burn mark.”

Mosetlho added that the accused later changed his version again, claiming that Dora had poured the acid on herself.

“He claimed that Dora was insulting him and swore at his mother. The accused gave more than one conflicting version that differed from his main testimony, and they cannot all be true.” 

Defence: Client more credible

The legal representative for the accused, Ms Olivier, argued that her client’s version was more credible than those of the two State witnesses.

“The injuries listed do not strengthen the case,” she said.

Olivier claimed that Dora and April were drinking and that April had left the premises to buy more alcohol. 

“There was no argument between my client and the complainant. Dora over-exaggerated what happened that day. She is aggrieved that she was injured for life by the flying acid. Her motive was to falsely accuse my client. He had no intention to injure the complainant or throw acid at her. He did not expect her to pull him from behind.”

Magistrate Memory Qomoyi postponed the matter until June 20.