WARNING: This story contains graphic detailsThe State has asked that the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria find Nicholas Ninow had planned and then preyed on the seven-year-old whom he raped in a Dros restaurant's bathroom in Pretoria in 2018.During closing arguments on Thursday, prosecutor Dorah Ngobeni told the court the evidence showed Ninow was not acting impulsively as he had claimed because he had planned to rape his victim.READ: Child gives a different sequence of events to Ninow'sNgobeni recounted the testimony of the waitress who had served Ninow on the day in question. She testified Ninow had changed tables, opting for a spot close to the restaurant's play area."Why a sudden change of mind for the accused to go sit in the area where the children are playing?" Ngobeni said.Victim's version should be acceptedShe then turned to the testimony of Johan Fourie who had a couple of drinks with Ninow at the restaurant. Fourie testified that Ninow had showed the Dros manager a bag of a stimulant drug called methcathinone, also known as CAT and asked if he wanted some.In Ninow's plea explanation, he said he went to the women's bathroom to snort CAT because he was afraid of being caught.Ngobeni questioned why he would be worried about being caught for doing drugs when he had already showed the CAT to the restaurant's manager.READ MORE: 'No parent should see what I witnessed' - mother of Dros rape victimThe State also focused on its version of events, stating that because Ninow had not testified or called any witnesses, the victim's testimony that she was in the bathroom when he came in should be accepted.Ngobeni said the victim had given a logical explanation of what happened in the bathroom. She told the court the seven-year-old said: "I was in the kiddies area, I requested to go to the toilet. I went to the toilet, I was sitting [on] the pot, doing a number one when the accused entered." Ninow wanted to satisfy his lustNinow claimed he was in the bathroom snorting CAT when the victim came in and told him she wanted to urinate.He said he took off her pants, put her on the toilet, then forced his penis into her mouth and inserted his fingers into her vagina. Ninow's version was that he acted impulsively.Ngobeni said the State's version of what happened was further bolstered by the testimony of Fourie who said Ninow saw an unknown adult woman in the restaurant and said he wanted to have sex. "He wanted to satisfy his sexual urges."Court should accept Ninow's versionNinow's legal aid attorney, Herman Alberts, told the court just because Ninow had changed tables, did not mean he was there preying on children with the intent to rape one of them."Yes, he made a comment about an adult woman but that cannot be an inference that he was now on the prowl to commit a rape," Alberts added.ALSO READ: Dros rape trial enters final stages - what we know so farHe said Ninow had not immediately followed the victim into the bathroom as per the State's version.Alberts told the court Ninow's version that he acted impulsively should be accepted, saying powder was found in the toilet stall, which fitted with the version that he was in the stall doing drugs.Assault chargeNgobeni argued that on the assault charge, if the court does not accept the version that two Dros employees were assaulted, it should accept that Ninow had attempted to assault them.He is accused of assaulting two employees, striking them with his belt after he was caught in the bathroom with the victim.Judge Mokhine Mosopa had an issue with this, telling Ngobeni none of the witnesses had actually testified to being hit with a belt, only saying Ninow had tried to strike them."Should the court find there was no assault, an attempt to assault has been proven," Ngobeni countered.Judge Mosopa is expected to hand down judgment on Monday.