Here are a couple of excerpts from the SA appeal case
Combrink v The State (2011) regarding dolus eventualis.
'In an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, it was held that, accepting the evidence of the witness, the appellant (who was a very good marksman) must subjectively have foreseen, when he aimed the second shot at the same place as the first, the possibility that the bullet could ricochet after striking a stone or some other object and in the process strike the deceased. Regardless of that foreseeable possibility, he went on to shoot. He was therefore guilty of murder, the intention being dolus eventualis.'
'Subjective foresight, like any other factual issue, may be proved by inference.
To constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt the inference must be the only one which can reasonably be drawn. It cannot be so drawn if there is a reasonable possibility that subjectively the accused did not foresee, even if he ought reasonably to have done so, and even if he probably did do so.
As already stated, in the present case Combrink fired the second shot knowing that the bullet might fatally strike the deceased. In my view he is
guilty of murder, the intention being dolus eventualis.'
http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgments/sca_2011/sca2011-116.pdf
IMO 'even if he probably did so' may throw a bit of a spanner in the works, but the rest of the judgement supports a finding of dolus eventualis in the OP case.
Appeals against Murder are easy and often upheld before retrial. Appeals against CH are more difficult & mean that there is the chance of an increased sentence. However, no-one is surprised when an immediate custodial sentence is handed out for CH.
