The Court of Appeal found that the defence evidence was never controverted for the prosecution did not adduce the victim’s evidence or the medical doctor to discredit the appellant’s assertions. That a medical report only was not sufficient where the appellant had alleged that he was framed. Therefore that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence of aggravated defilement.
Accordingly, court upheld the appeal holding that the trial judge erred in fact and law when he failed to properly evaluate evidence on record and convicted the appellant on insufficient evidence. The conviction was quashed and the sentence set aside.