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. 2