Summary

An accused was convicted in the trial court of raping an 11‑year‑old child and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment; the first appellate court upheld conviction and this second appeal followed. The appellant contended inter alia that the PF3 medical report was improperly admitted in breach of section 240(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, that witnesses were biased family members whose evidence should be discounted, and that the case was fabricated. The Court agreed that section 240(3) had not been complied with and expunged the PF3, but found there's ample remaining evidence to sustain conviction: the child’s own detailed testimony, corroboration by a neighbour who saw her leaving the accused’s room partially undressed, the grandmother’s observations of injury, and an admission note written and signed by the accused. The Court held that related witnesses’ evidence is not to be automatically rejected and that, under section 127(7) of the Evidence Act, a conviction may stand on a truthful child’s testimony. Finding no misdirection by lower courts, the appeal was dismissed. Issues Whether section 240(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act was complied with in admitting the PF3 (medical) report into evidence. Whether evidence given by family members of the complainant should be discounted because of alleged common interest or bias. Whether the prosecution proved the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of the PF3 medical report. Whether an appellate court on a second appeal should interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts. Whether, under section 127(7) of the Evidence Act (as amended), a conviction may safely rest on the uncorroborated evidence of a child of tender years. Held The Court held that the PF3 (medical) report (exhibit P1) was improperly admitted because section 240(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act was not complied with (the author/doctor was not called and the document was not read to the accused); accordingly the PF3 was expunged from the record. However, the expurgation did not vitiate the conviction. The Court found that the complainant’s in‑court account was credible and detailed, and that her evidence was corroborated by other witnesses (a neighbour who saw her leave the accused’s room with her chest exposed, the grandmother who observed swelling and dirtiness of the private parts, and the ten‑cell leader who recorded an admission by the accused in exhibit P2). On that basis the Court held the rape charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt even without the PF3. The Court rejected the submission that evidence of related witnesses must be discredited solely because they are family members, citing authority that there is no rule to automatically discount near relatives’ evidence. It also relied on section 127(7) of the Evidence Act permitting conviction on the evidence of a child of tender years if the court is satisfied the child is telling the truth. The Court reiterated the limited scope of a second appeal, declining to disturb concurrent factual findings by the lower courts in the absence of misdirection or non‑direction, and therefore dismissed the appeal. Order The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.

Flynote