2. The d e cisio n of the low er court w as a g a in st the w e ig h t of e v id e n c e . 3. There w as no co rro b o ra te d e v id e n c e of in d e c e n t assault or rap e . THE LAW AND EVIDENCE The p ro secution h a d to prove strictly that there w as penetration h o w e ve r slight it w as. A c c o rd in g to the e v id e n c e of the m e d ica l professional there w ere no sores or laceratio ns. The m e d ica l report d o es not sa y that there w as no penetration. W hether there w a s penetration or not is a m atter to b e d eterm in ed b y the co u rt b y looking a t the totality of e v id e n c e a n d a p p ly in g the law to the e v id e n c e , a n d not by the clin ician. The victim child said that A p p lic a n t took his penis a n d entered it into her v a g in a , a n d that she pulled the penis out w hen she felt pains. In her testim ony, the m other of the victim child told the court that A p p e lla n t later told them that he really w as h a v in g sex but he did not c o m e to finish his desire; a n d that the victim girl e xp la in e d thoroughly that he took his penis a n d entered it into her v a g in a . The testim ony of the m other is co rro b o rative e n o u g h . The in cid e n t o c c u rre d on the 21st Ju n e, 2017 w hile the m e d ic a l e xam in atio n took p la c e on the follow ing d a y . The clin icia n testified that the parents re v e a le d that the vu lva w a s o p e n after the defilem ent, w h ich m e a n t that the m an fo rce d him self but failed to p e n e trate d u e to the d istu rb an ce b y the boys. The m e d ic a l report c o n c lu d e d that history is m ore su ggestive of defilem ent. The law is c le a r that it is not n e ce ssa ry that sem en b e d e p o site d in the v a g in a . The m atter w a s rep o rted to the father of the victim girl on the sam e d a y a n d not too late. The victim said that she felt p ain as he en tered her. A lth o u gh he m ight h a v e failed to p en etrate her successfully, he s u c c e e d e d CRIMINAL DIVISION 2