The Appellant seeks to challenge the conviction of rape
entered against and the sentence of thirty (30) years’ imprisonment. It was
alleged at the trial that PW2 together with PW3 left their parents’ home and
went around the cashewnut farms in their area carrying buns for sale. They sold
some of the buns to Appellant. PW3 went ahead with the sale of buns, leaving
PW2 and the Appellant together. In the absence of PW3, the Appellant raped PW2
and caused her to suffer grievous harm. PW2 was issued with a PF3 for
examination and treatment. PF3 was admitted without calling medical officer.
The cautioned statement of the Appellant authored by PW4 was admitted in
evidence without any objection from him, in which the latter confessed to the
commission of the offence, with the consent of PW2. At the trial the Appellant
repeated what he had stated in the cautioned statement. The Appellant
challenges the High Court decision on grounds that the courts below erred in
grounding conviction on the basis of the evidence of family members; That PF3
was admitted contrary to the dictates of section 240 (3) of the Criminal
Procedure Act and That the trial was not held in camera, contrary to the law.
This court also discovered inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence as
regards the age of PW2 at the time of the incident.