When Martha, PW1, took the stand she testified that she stays in the same
location with the appellant who sells shoes. She testified that sometime in March
2007 the appellant enticed her to have sex with him but she refused and
continued to do so on a daily basis but she resisted him. Then in November 2007
he finally managed to convince her to have sex with her. Martha’s parents had
gone to the village and Martha was left alone with her siblings. The sex took place
in the same bathroom at 10.00 in the morning and the appellant gave PW1 K50.00
and told her not to reveal to anybody. The wife of the appellant had gone to her
village at the material time. PW1 explained that when the appellant called her
into the said bathroom he asked her to bend over and he had sex with her whilst
she was bent over. This was the beginning of several sexual episodes with the
appellant and on each event he would offer her some reward with an admonition
not to reveal to anybody what was happening between them. PW1 recalled of a
day when the appellant asked PW1 and her relatives to do some piece work at his
house. She went ahead of everybody and had sex with the appellant before her
relatives arrived and they all did the piece work. Then again he asked PW1 and
her relatives to do piece work and she went ahead of everybody but on this day
she refused to have sex with the appellant. Then the last incident took place in
PW4’s bathroom at about 8.00 pm and they were found in the act – this was on 15
January 2008 and PW4 reported the matter to PW2, the complainant’s father.
Complainant’s father asked her what had happened and she explained to him that
what had taken place in the bathroom and the matter was reported to the village
headman then to police and then appellant was arrested. Then police sent her to
hospital.

3

Select target paragraph3