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

Select target paragraph3