The appellant contended that when the complainant was medically tested she
was found to be infected with sexually transmitted infection and she was tested in
his absence. He further queried how it was alleged that he had infected the girl
when he and his wife are free from any sexually transmitted infections. He did
ask, according to his testimony, the police why he was not tested and he was told
that it was his own right to be tested, in other words he could not be tested
against his interest. The appellant further challenged the findings of the medical
examination when the alleged offence occurred on 16th January and the girl was
only taken for medical examination on 17th January 2008.
The State opposed the appeal on all factors. Skeletal arguments were filed to
support the stance of the State. The evidence on record is that on the night of 16
January 2008, PW4, the appellant’s landlord heard footsteps across her veranda
and then she heard voices in her bathroom, she decided to check what was
happening and when she opened the door of the bathroom, the Appellant came
out. When he was asked what he was doing he said he was relieving himself and
he pulled up his trousers and left. PW4 decided to enter the bathroom and when
she lit a match she found the complainant huddled up in a corner. When PW4
asked her what she was doing, Martha said she was urinating. PW4 told Martha
that she was suspicious about the circumstances and that she would report the
same to Martha’s father. At the point, Martha fled from the scene and PW4
reported the matter to Martha’s father, PW2 and handed over Martha to her
father. PW4 went back to bed and the next day she learnt that the matter had
been reported to police and she was required to give her statements.


Select target paragraph3