Brian Kipkemoi Koech v Republic [2013] eKLR 6. The contents of this treatment chit appears to form the basis of the record in the P3 form, save for the conclusion remarks. A Clinical Officer is an expert who is versed with a P3 form. He would not refer to a treatment chit as a P3 form. The court would not, in the absence of the P3 form conclusively say that there were positive findings corroborative of PW1's evidence. In any event, the treatment chit has not made any remarks as to whether the complainant was defiled or not. Again, even assuming that the treatment chit had such remarks, I would still poke holes into it on the ground that its date has been altered. PW1 did not make any reference to it and thus made no attempt to explain who altered the date to read from 26th June, 2009 to 29th June, 2009. Further, the proceedings do clearly show that there is evident discrepancy of the testimony of PW1 with regard to the date he examined the complainant and the date he said the complainant was defiled. According to him, he filled the P3 form on 30th May, 2009 while the complainant was defiled on 29th June, 2009. What this ultimately means is that the examination of the complainant was done before the offence was committed. It is also clear that the date on the charge sheet was 28th June, 2009, and not 29th June, 2009. PW1's varied evidence on these dates should have raised eye brows in the mind of the trial court. He should have critically evaluated these discrepancies and resolved them in the favour of the Appellant. As regards the substantive evidence, the complainant testified as PW2. Her testimony was that on 28th June, 2009 at 10.00 a.m. she was sent by her grandmother to Ravine town to fetch her school fees from her uncle one S who operated a taxi in the town. That on arrival in the town, as she was inquiring of the whereabouts of her uncle's house, the Appellant approached her and offered to show her the way. That together, they boarded a vehicle that had no other passenger except the driver. They were driven to Maji Mazuri but she did not find her uncle. At 4.00 p.m., the driver whom she referred to as "Mukorino" took her back to Ravine where the Appellant was waiting for her. The Appellant offered to take her to her uncle's house. Instead he took her to a forest where he forced her to have sex with him. The Appellant abandoned her at 7.00 p.m. at her uncle's house where she spent the night. PW3 P K named as PW2 stated that PW2 did not show up in his house until the following day, that is 29th June, 2009. He stated that he was informed by one T that PW2 had been seen with the Appellant in the town. PW4, D K T (indicated as PW3) confirmed having carried PW2 in his vehicle and dropping her at the Appellant's house. He said that PW2 had requested him to take her to the Appellant's house. From the above analysis, it is clear that the Appellant was indeed in the company of PW2 on 28th June, 2009. What is doubtful is whether the offence with which he was charged is one and the same that was committed on 28th June, 2009. It is my view that court cannot convict on mere suspicion but on basis of concrete evidence. The testimony of a medical officer is sufficient to corroborate that of a victim. But in the instant case, it shattered the prosecution's case into pieces. For this one reason, I would give the Appellant the benefit of doubts. On the 4th ground of appeal, the Appellant has argued that the trial court disregarded his evidence. He testified on 29th October, 2009 and gave a very brief sworn statement of defence. He said that he was arrested on 28th June, 2009 and taken to the Police Station. That earlier on, D K (referring to PW4) had been arrested. That after three hours K was released. He further said he was not taken to any hospital http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 4/6