awarded to him because he did not keep all these mentioned goods neither in his home or in any other place; he adds that he never claimed ownership of these goods and that nowhere in the preparatory investigation or in the judgement before you there is mention of the extorted goods as evidence leading to a conviction; Regarding the guilty intention, the accused maintains that he never unjustly appropriated all the goods mentioned in his indictment; Regarding the offense of rape, the accused denies the facts awarded to him, because he never had sexual conjunction with resort to violence with the victim ELIE; He adds that the victim states that she was with her fiance in the garage where he worked at 2 in the morning, in front of the COBIL Gas Station, 100 meters from the Police Station ( Sub-Station) and in front of her house; he adds that the the lack of a medical request to prove if there was in fact rape and the medical report to confirm said rape, as well as the wounds claimed by the victim ELIE; The preceding claims demonstrate his incapability to commit rape due to the fact that the victim lives in front of the garage and the Police Station on the main avenue University; Regarding the lack of consent, he argues that he never had sexual intercourse with resort to violence with the plaintiff ELIE without her consent; Regarding the intellectual element, he claims to have never exercised violence or threats or ruse towards the plaintiff ELIE; Regarding the sentencing of the 1st Judge, he claims his innocence; He concludes that the Court shall acquit him for lack of evidence; The Court declared the appeal of the accused MANGOLE partially founded; it finds that, in fact, the 1st judge did not evoke in the previous decision any material evidence that the extorted goods were in the hands of the accused; It notes that the 76 plastic chairs could not have been transported by a single person, but by a group; since the police has not arrested the other members of the group nor did it apprehend any plastic chair where the accused allegedly hid them; It finds that there is room for doubt in the investigation of the events. There is a principle that stipulates “ in dubio pro reo”, doubt benefits the accused; The Court shall nullify the previous judgement due to lack of motive, because the 1 st Judge convicted the accused without having produced evidence of the extortion of 76 chairs and two plastic tables; Ruling on these events in conformity with article 107 of the Penal Code, the Courst finds the accusation of extortion not established, because the Prosecution did not present evidence that the accused had extorted 76 chairs and two plastic tables, nor did it present a witness to the events, the doubt benefits the accused; However, the Court finds the offense of rape established, because the victim confirms that she had sexual intercourse to the threat of a knife, aided by two other boys; It notes that the victim did not scream due to the threat issued by the accused; It declares established both in fact and in law the accusation of rape awarded to the accused; Regarding the civil interests of the victim, it finds that she suffered a clear damage due to the dishonor that this act has brought to her life, the moral damage. It shall allocate to her the amount of 200.000 Congolese Francs for damages and interests suffered; The analysis of the other grounds is found superfluous;