of the case defence, and both sides and during submissions, in my vi~w conceded t~a!r t_h~ . p_r9secution h_a_~ _p~gved ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. The victim years at the said she was 2 U'-'-·U.:>,.,,u time of ingredient record. for that, he del her on that the defilement. In my beyond to the held by the mination told himself in victim was about 1 112 years view came with the a toddler, who was always bei cou1t. She was Even the of the ______ _ on the doubt medical evidence is the evidence if we were told by PWI, that the doctor who had examined the victim r. No one knew his signature or handwriting Dr. Mainuka, passed away last including PWI. Hence no medical evidence could However both and sexual (See the case OYEKI can by other congent evidence, VS. UGANDA, UCA CR. APPL NO. 26/99). In this case, we have the first answered adduced in of the victim's alarm raised by PW3 and PWS, (PW2), then PW4, who L.CJ Chairman All these said they examined the victim's private there. was PW3 had in the though when she was only 2 failure prosecution 0 saw blood flowing from accused defiling the victim and saw vagina. The child was a toddler of 2 years. was about 5 years heard. No reasonable person could area. vr• 0 rr time the case was her to recall her years old. victim to testify been held not to necessarily if there is other congent evidence implicating the the case of PATRICK AKOL VS. UGANDA S.C.U. CR. APPL 23/92). 2 . (See