In his defence, the accused re-affirmed his denial of the indictment. He testified
that he did not know the complainant. He saw her for the first time while testifying
against him in court. Todate he is wondering why she made such allegations
against him. That on the day in question he was at his home throughout. He was
surprised to be arrested by the LC.I Chairman at 9:00p.m. He was taken to the
chairman’s home where he met two motorcycles on which he was taken to police.
At police he was told he was a suspect in a rape case. He denied the offence.
The offence of rape is committed by any person who unlawfully has carnal
knowledge of a woman or girl above 18 years of age without her consent if the
consent is obtained by force or by intimidation of any kind or by fear of bodily
harm or false representations as to the nature of the act or personating a husband in
case of a married woman. Therefore the three essential elements of the offence of
rape are:(1) Carnal knowledge of a woman or girl above 18 years of age, and;
(2) Lack of consent making it unlawful;
(3) By the accused.
These ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable
doubt. This burden does not shift Joseph Kiiza & Anor. V. Uganda [1978] HCN
268.
Sexual intercourse at common law known as carnal knowledge is penetration of a
male organ into that of the female.
I will now deal with the first two ingredients together.
(1) Whether there was sexual intercourse without consent.
In her submission, Ms. Alpha Ogwang the learned Resident State Attorney stressed
that she adduced enough evidence to prove this ingredient as required. She relied
on the evidence of the complainant, PW.3, PW.4. That these witnesses
corroborated each other and their evidence was confirmed by the statement in
admission made by the accused and exhibited as Exhibit P.2. That prosecution
evidence supported the evidence of PW.1 who was a single identifying witness.
On the other hand Mr. Mudangha learned defence counsel submitted that this
ingredient was not proved because prosecution relied on evidence of a single
identifying witness. Secondly that no medical evidence was adduced to prove
sexual intercourse. That the doctor did not testify. That PW.1’s story is a
concoction and that there was no sexual intercourse.
3