The victim herself appeared in court and told court that she was born in 1994 thereby establishing her age at 11 years.

The defence did not contest the age of the victim. It was so notorious that the victim was a girl below 18 years old. This ingredient has therefore been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

With regard as to whether the victim did experience sexual intercourse, the prosecution contended that there was. For that contention the prosecution relied on the medical evidence of the doctor who examined the victim on 23/7/2002 where it was established that the victim had signs of penetration. Her hymen had raptured for the period the doctor could not tell. She had minor bruises on the vulva which were consistent with force sexually used. In light of the above medical evidence the defence conceded that the act of sexual intercourse had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. I do agree with that concession. That piece of evidence was admitted during preliminary hearing under section 66 of the Trial on indictment Act. It is trite law that a fact or a document admitted or agreed upon in a memorandum filed under section 66 of the Trial on indictments Act is deemed to have been proved: See

Apart from the medical evidence, there was also the victim’s testimony that sometime back she had sexual intercourse from her grandmother’s house with a certain man. This evidence was corroborated by the testimony of Anna Mukibi (PW1) who was the victim’s mother. She testified that upon getting information that the victim was a suspect of sexual abuse, she examined her private parts and found there injuries which confirmed that she had been having sexual intercourse. I must emphasize that physical examination of the victim’s private parts by parents or relatives constitutes cogent evidence in proof of penetration. It is as good as professional examination if done by experienced people: See

In light of the above overwhelming evidence, I do agree that the prosecution has proved the second ingredient beyond all reasonable doubt.

This leads me to the last ingredient as to the identity of the person who participated in this offence.

The prosecution relied on the victim’s evidence to implicate the accused. She testified that she knew the accused because they were staying in the same place. She testified that as she was coming back from school the accused lured her and took her to their grandmother’s house and promised to give her photographs and avocadoes.

The accused relied on the defence of alibi and grudge. The defence of alibi collapsed when the defence conceded that the claim by the accused that all along he had never left prison custody, was false. The position clearly corroborated the victim’s evidence that it was the accused who had played sex with her. The above pieces of evidence should have been buttressed by the charge and caution statement of the accused. however the same was poorly recorded as the officer who administered the same did not know the language of the accused well. This court cannot be sure whether he recorded all that that accused had told him. I therefore ruled that the charge and caution statement had no evidentiary value .

All in all there was overwhelming evidence that it was the accused who had participated in the unlawful sexual intercourse with the victim. The allegation of family grudge was unfounded. This matter came to light when the victim revealed to the school authorities that the accused was having sexual affairs with her. It was the school authorities who alerted the victim’s mother that there was something going between the accused and the victim. In the circumstances the defence of grudge was a mere afterthought meant to divert the course of justice. Therefore in agreement with both assessors I do find that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of this offence beyond all reasonable doubt. I therefore find the accused guilty as charged and convict him accordingly.