High Court Convicts Man for Rape in Kabale, reinforcing that rape prosecutions must be grounded in both testimonial and medical evidence, with the prosecution bearing the full evidentiary burden.

Waboga David
Jul 30
4 min read

Introduction

The High Court reaffirmed the principles governing the standard of proof in criminal trials, drawing from Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) and Woolmington v DPP (1935).

Identification evidence, especially under difficult conditions, must meet stringent tests laid out in Bogere Moses v Uganda.

Medical evidence and credible, consistent testimony were central to securing a conviction for rape under Sections 110 and 111 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 120.

Background

The accused, Banturakangye Juma, was indicted for rape, contrary to Sections 110 and 111 of the Penal Code Act. The prosecution alleged that on 1 January 2022, at Rutooma Cell in Kabale District, during New Year festivities, the accused attacked and raped Amumpeire Pretty using force and threats of violence.

The case was tried before the High Court at Kabale, with Hon. Justice Ssemogerere, Karoli Lwanga presiding. The accused denied the allegations and raised an alibi in his defence.

The events giving rise to the case are that on the night of 1st January 2022, during New Year festivities. The complainant, Amumpeire Pretty, was returning home with a group of friends when she was violently attacked by the accused, Banturakangye Juma, a person known to her as a neighbour in the same village of Rutooma Cell, Kabale District.

According to the prosecution, as the complainant and her group walked home at around 8:00 PM, the accused emerged and confronted them while armed with a panga (machete). While the rest of the group managed to flee, the complainant was caught, beaten, and forcefully subjected to non-consensual sexual intercourse.

The victim, referred to as PW1, testified that the accused used both physical violence and threats to subdue her. He slapped and beat her using fists, removed her undergarments by force, and threatened to kill her if she resisted.

At the time of the assault, a motor vehicle passed by the scene and its headlights illuminated the area, enabling the complainant to positively identify the accused. After the assault, the victim escaped and hid overnight in a banana plantation, from where she observed the accused actively searching for her with a flashlight.

The following morning, the victim reported the incident to her mother, Florence Tumwebaze (PW2). PW2 physically examined her daughter and confirmed signs of distress and sexual assault. She immediately reported the incident to the LC1 Chairman, who referred them to the police. The accused was subsequently arrested on 2nd January 2022.

A medical examination of the complainant was conducted at Rugarama Hospital and documented in Police Form 3A. The findings confirmed multiple injuries, including bruises on the neck, a swollen jaw, and a shaky first canine tooth, as well as tenderness in the chest, abdomen, and back. Genital examination revealed multiple bruises on the labia minora and vaginal walls, consistent with penetration by a blunt object, and the victim experienced pain and bleeding, especially when urinating. This medical evidence was uncontested and admitted into evidence by consent.

The accused was also medically examined, and the findings recorded in Police Form 24A revealed no injuries on his body. At trial, the accused denied the allegations and raised a defence of alibi, claiming that he was at home throughout the night of the incident. His account was presented through unsworn testimony, which meant it could not be tested through cross-examination.

The crime scene, located approximately 100 metres off the Kanyanywanzi-Kitumba Road, was acknowledged in a memorandum of agreed facts and admitted into evidence. In evaluating the facts, the Court noted that the conditions for proper identification of the accused were present, given the illumination from car headlights, the use of a torch, and the complainant’s prior familiarity with the accused. The Court also noted that the accused’s alibi was effectively rebutted by the prosecution’s direct and corroborated evidence.

Court’s Finding and Holding

The Court found that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt, as required under Sections 110 and 111 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 120. The Court emphasized that the standard of proof in criminal trials does not require absolute certainty but must exclude any reasonable doubt, relying on the guiding authority of Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372.

In evaluating the evidence, the Court held that the testimony of the complainant (PW1) was credible, consistent, and corroborated by both medical evidence and the testimony of her mother (PW2). The Court was satisfied that all four legal elements of the offence of rape were established:

Proof of sexual intercourse was supported by both oral testimony and medical examination findings indicating genital trauma consistent with forceful penetration.
Lack of consent was clearly demonstrated through the victim’s account of being beaten, threatened with a panga, and forced into submission.
Use of force and threats was substantiated by both testimonial and medical evidence, detailing extensive bodily injuries.
Participation of the accused was conclusively proved through reliable identification by the victim under favourable conditions, including lighting from a car’s headlights and the accused’s use of a flashlight during pursuit.

The Court rejected the accused’s unsworn alibi, noting that it was not subjected to cross-examination and lacked credibility when weighed against the prosecution’s direct and corroborated evidence. Relying on Bogere Moses v Uganda, SC Crim App No. 1 of 1997, the Court further held that the identification evidence met the threshold for correctness and reliability.

In agreement with the unanimous opinion of the assessors, the Court concluded that the accused’s defence failed to raise reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court found Banturakangye Juma guilty of the offence of rape and convicted him accordingly.

Significance

This case reinforces that rape prosecutions must be grounded in both testimonial and medical evidence, with the prosecution bearing the full evidentiary burden.

Read the full case below