Rex v Rwakaikara (Cr. App. 39-1931.)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction for indecent assault. The Court held that evidence of a complaint made six days after the alleged offence was inadmissible, and that even if admissible, a complaint should be proved by stating what the prosecutrix said orally, not by producing a document recording the complaint. Despite this evidentiary error, the conviction was upheld as the remaining evidence supported the trial judge's findings.
Outcome
Conviction for indecent assault upheld
Facts
The appellant was charged with attempted rape and convicted of indecent assault under section 110 of the Penal Code by the High Court of Uganda in Criminal Case No. 6 of 1931. The Superintendent of the Criminal Investigation Department gave evidence that he arrived at Fort Portal on 31 October 1930 and took a statement from the prosecutrix on the same day. He filed her formal complaint on 1 November 1930 and produced both the complaint and her statement as exhibits. The appellant denied guilt and appealed his conviction.
Issues
- Whether evidence of a complaint made six days after the alleged offence was admissible.
- Whether the complaint should have been proved by oral testimony rather than by production of a written document.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Penal Code s.110
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.