High Court Convicts Accused of Aggravated Defilement; emphasizes that prosecutors still retain the discretion to charge the accused with either rape or defilement, depending on the circumstances.

Facts

The accused, Prince Alex, an adult male approximately 35 years old at the time of the offense, was charged with aggravated defilement for unlawfully performing sexual acts with Ampumuza Doreen, a minor aged 13, in Kishongati cell, Highland Ward, Muhanga Town Council, Rukiga District.

The incidents occurred over five consecutive days in September 2021 (specifically September 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20).

The victim was accosted by the accused while fetching water from a well, lured into his home under false pretenses, and subjected to non-consensual sexual intercourse.

The accused threatened to kill the victim if she raised an alarm, leading to her silence until the fifth incident.

On September 20, 2021, the victim's father (PW1) noticed her distress upon her return home around 11:00 a.m. and confronted her, prompting her disclosure.

The victim was immediately taken to Mparo Healthcare Center IV for examination and later to the police station.

The accused was home alone during the incidents, with his family in Kampala.

The victim confirmed these were her first sexual encounters, and no physical injuries were visible, though medical evidence revealed internal signs of penetration and infection.

The prosecution presented a prima facie case on June 30, 2025, leading to the defense phase commencing on July 8, 2025.

Prosecution Evidence and Witnesses

The prosecution's case rested on four key witnesses and documentary exhibits:

1. PW1: Arinaitwe Sekimuri (Victim's Father and Complainant)  

   • A bodaboda rider and farmer who had known the accused for about 20 years as a neighbor.

   • Testified to confronting the victim on September 20, 2021, after observing her hesitation and unease. She disclosed the repeated assaults.

   • Confirmed taking her to the police and healthcare center. Noted the victim was wearing a blue flowered dress and had gone to fetch water.

   • On cross-examination, affirmed the dates of the incidents (September 14–20, 2021) and the absence of visible injuries.

2. PW2: Ampumuza Doreen (Victim)  

   • Aged 17 at trial (born December 24, 2007, making her 13 at the time of the offense). A Senior Four student.

   • Detailed the five daytime incidents, including threats, coercion, and lack of consent. All occurred without protection.

   • Explained her silence due to trauma and threats. Identified the accused in court.

   • On cross-examination, reiterated the threats as the reason for not reporting earlier.

3. PW3: Mbonigaba Evarist Arukurama (Senior Nursing Officer)  

   • Examined the victim and completed Police Form PF3A (admitted as Prosecution Exhibit 2).

   • Findings: Whitish curdy vaginal discharge (indicative of Candida, a sexually transmitted infection); absent hymen, suggesting penetration by a blunt object or finger. Victim was stable, tested negative for pregnancy and HIV but positive for Candida.

   • Confirmed conducting over 50 similar examinations; corroborated the victim's account of five incidents.

4. PW4: Muddoo Edgar (Medical Doctor)  

   • Examined the accused and completed Police Form PF24A (admitted as Prosecution Exhibit 3).

   • Findings: Accused in fair condition, adult (approx. 35 years), with abrasions on arms (possibly from blunt trauma), copious smegma on genitals, and negative for HIV. Noted well-developed genitals.

   • Implicitly linked to transmission of infection, as the accused also showed signs consistent with Candida.

Additional Exhibit

Prosecution Exhibit 1: Child Health Card confirming the victim's birthdate (December 24, 2007), establishing her age below 14.

The court found these witnesses credible, noting the traumatic nature of the offense and dismissing minor inconsistencies (e.g., the victim's calm demeanor during examination) as not undermining the evidence.

Defense Case

The defense called two witnesses:

1. DW1: Prince Alex (Accused)  

   • Gave sworn testimony admitting knowledge of the victim and her family (neighbors). Claimed a prior relationship with the victim's mother and alleged assistance in family disputes.

   • Denied the offenses, claiming he was beaten and threatened by police to pay ransom to PW1. Alleged detention for 9 days with daily caning.

   • No alibi provided; testimony deemed evasive by the court.

2. DW2: Ivan Tibihika  

   • Claimed the victim's parents demanded ransom from him (not the accused).

   • Testimony dismissed as unhelpful; no evidence (e.g., call logs or texts) produced.

A third potential witness (Dr. Onesmus Ahebwa) was rejected, as he had not examined the victim but only reviewed PF3A.

Defense counsel was absent during final submissions, and no applications were made regarding alleged police misconduct.

Court's Findings

1. Burden and Standard of Proof

   The court reaffirmed that the burden on prosecution throughout (Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462).

   
   

   Standard: Beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute certainty (Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372).

   Evidence evaluated holistically.

   
   

2. Elements of Aggravated Defilement (Section 129(3)(4)(a), Penal Code Act):

   1. Sexual Intercourse:

      Proved by PW2's consistent testimony, corroborated by medical evidence (ruptured hymen, Candida infection transmitted from accused).

   2. Victim's Age Below 14:

      Unchallenged; confirmed by Exhibit 1 (age 13 in September 2021).

   3. Accused's Participation:

      Positive identification (daylight offenses, known neighbor); no mistaken identity risk. Medical linkage via STI transmission.

3. Distinction from Rape/Defilement

   The court cited Uganda v Kusemererwa (HCT-01-CR-SC-0015-2014) and Uganda v Orem Nicholas (Criminal Session No. 459 of 2010). Prosecutors have discretion to charge defilement for minors, emphasizing age as an aggravating factor.

4. Accused's claims (e.g., extortion, police abuse) not substantiated; failed to impeach prosecution evidence (Abdu Ngobi v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 030 of 2015).

The assessors (Ms. Mercy Kembabazi and Mr. Livingstone Nyamutunga) opined in favor of conviction, aligning with the judge's findings.

Court's Reasoning and Verdict

Justice Ssemogerere found the prosecution's evidence overwhelming:

1. Victim's testimony was credible and consistent, establishing non-consent and trauma.

2. Medical corroboration (Exhibits 2 and 3) provided independent proof of penetration and STI transmission.

3. Defense testimony was evasive and lacked substantiation, offering no viable alibi or rebuttal.

4. All elements were proved beyond a reasonable doubt; no fanciful possibilities deflected justice.

   
   

The accused was convicted as charged. Sentencing was not detailed in the judgment but is expected to follow statutory guidelines (life imprisonment possible for aggravated defilement).

Read the full case below

Uganda v Prince Alex.rtf

Download RTF • 1.28MB