News
Entebbe court acquits man in aggravated defilement case
Justice Flavia Nabakooza held that although the prosecution proved that the complainant was below the age of 14 and that a sexual act had occurred, it failed to prove the accused’s participation in the offence.
Justice Nabakooza held that the contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, coupled with the evidence relating to the alleged grudge, created reasonable doubt as to the accused’s participation in the offence. (File photo)
By: Barbra Kabahumuza, Journalist @New Vision
________________
The High Court in Entebbe has acquitted Henry Kijjambu of aggravated defilement.
This comes after court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was the person who sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl.
The prosecution called five witnesses, including the victim, while the defence presented three witnesses. Moses Kalemela represented the accused person.
Justice Flavia Nabakooza held that although the prosecution proved that the complainant was below the age of 14 and that a sexual act had occurred, it failed to prove the accused’s participation in the offence.
Kijjambu had been charged with aggravated defilement after the prosecution alleged that on October 26, 2020, at Kasanje Central Cell in Kasanje Town Council, Wakiso district, he performed a sexual act on the girl, whose identity the court concealed in accordance with the Children Act.
In her judgment, Justice Nabakooza noted that the victim consistently identified Kijjambu as the person who allegedly assaulted her and that she knew him before the incident.
However, the judge found that the prosecution’s case was weakened by an unexplained inconsistency in its documentary evidence.
Whereas the indictment stated that the alleged offence occurred on October 26, 2020, the medical examination report tendered by the prosecution showed that the victim was examined on September 28, 2020, and recorded that she had allegedly had forceful sexual intercourse two days earlier.
In her judgment, Justice Nabakooza noted that the victim consistently identified Kijjambu as the person who allegedly assaulted her and that she knew him before the incident.
However, the judge found that the prosecution’s case was weakened by an unexplained inconsistency in its documentary evidence.
Whereas the indictment stated that the alleged offence occurred on October 26, 2020, the medical examination report tendered by the prosecution showed that the victim was examined on September 28, 2020, and recorded that she had allegedly had forceful sexual intercourse two days earlier.
“The medical examination was conducted a month before the alleged offence was committed. This is a major inconsistency and contradiction that goes to the root of the prosecution’s case,” Justice Nabakooza ruled.
The judge further observed that the defence adduced evidence suggesting there was a grudge between the accused and the complainant arising from a land dispute.
She noted that the prosecution did not lead evidence to rebut that assertion and reminded herself of the legal principle requiring courts to exercise caution where evidence points to possible grudges between witnesses and accused persons.
Justice Nabakooza held that the contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, coupled with the evidence relating to the alleged grudge, created reasonable doubt as to the accused’s participation in the offence.
“I remain doubtful of the accused person’s participation in the alleged offence. The doubt resolves the case in favour of the accused person,” the judge held before acquitting him.
The judge also disagreed with the unanimous opinion of the assessors, who had recommended that Kijjambu be convicted of aggravated defilement.
The judge further observed that the defence adduced evidence suggesting there was a grudge between the accused and the complainant arising from a land dispute.
She noted that the prosecution did not lead evidence to rebut that assertion and reminded herself of the legal principle requiring courts to exercise caution where evidence points to possible grudges between witnesses and accused persons.
Justice Nabakooza held that the contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, coupled with the evidence relating to the alleged grudge, created reasonable doubt as to the accused’s participation in the offence.
“I remain doubtful of the accused person’s participation in the alleged offence. The doubt resolves the case in favour of the accused person,” the judge held before acquitting him.
The judge also disagreed with the unanimous opinion of the assessors, who had recommended that Kijjambu be convicted of aggravated defilement.