CASE RPA 0591/15 / HC / KIG  Page |4 There is no evidence that spending night in the same house was followed with rape, especially since BAPFAKURERA Samuel and BAZI julienne concur that TUYISENGE was afraid to return home for fear of being punished, which shows that it was a possibility for her to spend a night in the store house, especially that the house belonged to her father. 13. The Court also observes that Article 165 of Law No. 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to Criminal Procedure Code provides in its paragraph 1 that: “The benefit of doubt shall be given in favour of the accused” and this article continues in paragraph 2 that " If the proceedings conducted as completely as possible do not enable judges to find reliable evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, the judges shall order his/her acquittal.", which is why the Court holds that BAPFAKURERA Samuel is innocent of the crime of child defilement. III. COURT DECISION THE HIGH COURT 14. HOLDS that the appeal filed by BAPFAKURERA Samuel is admissible because it has been filed in accordance with the law, and the Court finds it well-founded; 15. HOLDS that the judgment under appeal RP 0120/15/TGI/Gic is amended in all its aspects, and BAPFAKURERA Samuel is acquitted on appeal; 16. DECIDES that BAPFAKURERA Samuel wins; 17. ORDERS that BAPFAKURERA Samuel be immediately released; 18. ORDERS that the legal costs be borne by the State. ISSUED AND READ IN PUBLIC ON 21/1/2016. JUDGE Se/ BUKUBA UMULISA Claire REGISTRAR Se/ MUREKATETE Bernadette 4|Page