On June 21, 1998 at about 3:00 pm, a 16 year old schoolgirl, while on her way to visit a brother-in-law, met a man who was related to her through marriage.
The man dragged her to his house, which was nearby, and detained her in the house for three days. During this period, the girl was to narrate to court that the man had carnal knowledge of her three times and kept away her dress and underwear in the house. She, however, confessed that she did not scream when the man dragged her into the house nor did she make any alarms during the three days she was detained.
The school girl managed to escape from the man’s house on 23rd June when the man left early in the morning to go and bring water for them to bath.
She escaped only in her petticoat and wearing the man’s sweater which she wore to cover the upper part of her body as her clothes were locked in the man’s suitcase.
Having escaped from the man’s house, the schoolgirl went straight to her brother-in-law who was to confirm to court that the girl came to him dressed as she had described.
The brother-in-law took up the case and reported to the law enforcement agencies on 24th June.
The girl was referred to a medical doctor who examined her and made a report. During the medical examination the doctor noted a white discharge, epithelial cells, yeast cells but no spermatozoa. It so happened that during trial the doctor was not called to testify although the medical report was tendered in as evidence by a police officer.
The house where the schoolgirl was detained was searched and the girl’s blouse and skirt were recovered. The man who had detained the girl was arrested and charged with the offence of rape.
The man denied the charge and, in his unsworn statement, stated that at the material time when the rape was alleged to have occurred he was in the field working with his wife and three days later he was arrested. He was subjected to a medical examination whose result was inconclusive and also found him with no infections.
The trial court, however, convicted the man of the offence of rape and was sentenced to a term of 10 years imprisonment with ten strokes of the cane. The man appealed the conviction and sentence but on 15th October 1999, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence upheld.
A second appeal was, however, filed and this appeal was based on one ground, that the trial and the first appellate courts misdirected themselves that there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the offence of rape in this case. To corroborate is to confirm or give support to a statement or finding or to attest to the truth or validity of something. It means to authenticate, confirm, substantiate, validate and verify.
The lawyer for the man submitted that the trial court and the first appellate court erred in finding that there was adequate evidence to corroborate the schoolgirl’s testimony.
He emphasized that the prosecution’s failure to call the doctor, who examined the victim, as a witness to explain his findings was an incurable error.
The lawyer pointed out that what the two courts relied on was too weak and inadequate to provide corroboration in a rape case.
The Prosecution lawyer submitted that failure to call the doctor was not fatal to the State’s case as there was overwhelming evidence to support the charge of rape. The lawyer also submitted that the requirement for corroboration was a rule of practice only and in the present case there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the schoolgirl’s testimony.
He pointed to the finding of the girl’s clothes in the house of the perpetrator and the manner in which the girl was dressed as she fled from the house where she had been held and the fact that the complainant was made immediately after the incidence.
To the lawyer the combined effect of all these factors provided full and adequate corroboration.
The second appellate court ruled that the law on corroboration is not in dispute anymore.
There is requirement for corroboration in all sexual offences. In appropriate circumstances, however, where the trial court is satisfied that the complainant is speaking nothing but the whole truth, the court may convict without corroboration. Where, however, the court feels that there is need for corroboration, it must say so expressly in the judgment. Court must then look for corroboration from the evidence led and recorded. Where court finds no corroboration after forming the opinion that corroboration is necessary, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and acquittal must result.
The second appellate court noted that the trial court was alive to the need of corroboration and did not treat the case as one where the court was prepared to convict without corroboration.
The trial court found that the evidence of the other witnesses corroborated in the testimony of the schoolgirl.
The first appellate court also observed that in sexual offences corroboration of the complainant’s testimony is necessary and desirable but not mandatory and that the trial court must warn itself of the danger of acting on uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.
The appellate court further stated that the trial court, having so warned itself, may convict in the absence of corroboration if it is satisfied that the complainant’s evidence is truthful. The first appellate court relied on the manner in which the school girl was dressed when she fled from where she had been detained to uphold the decision of the trial court.
The first appellate court, however, observed that there was no corroboration of the schoolgirl’s testimony with regard to lack of consent and penetration, both essential ingredients of the offence of rape.
The second appellate court observed that the schoolgirl was emphatic in her evidence that the man who detained her had, without her consent, carnal knowledge of her three times during the two nights of her detention.
The second appellate court noted that the doctor who examined the schoolgirl was not called to give evidence in the trial court and consequently the meaning and significance of the medical evidence remained unexplained and could not provide corroboration that the man had carnal knowledge of the schoolgirl. The result of this was, therefore, that there was no corroboration on the two essential ingredients of rape.
On the 22nd day November, 2000 the second appellate court, having considered the submissions before it, arrived at the conclusion that the conviction was unsafe and quashed the conviction, set aside the sentence and set free the convicted man.
