Wakilii

Uganda v Turyamureeba Silvano (HCT (HCT) [2009] UGHC 121

High Court · 2009 Convicted of Lesser Offence AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal trial in the High Court for defilement
Decision
Accused convicted of attempted defilement and sentenced to six years imprisonment

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 acquitted the accused of defilement under s.129(1) of the Penal Code Act, finding that penetration was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court convicted him of the lesser offence of attempted defilement under s.129(2), holding that the accused had completed all necessary preparations to commit the offence by removing clothing and causing bruising to the victim's sexual parts. The victim's unsworn evidence required corroboration, which was found in the sworn testimony of a child witness and the accused's flight from the scene.

Outcome

Accused convicted of attempted defilement and sentenced to six years imprisonment

Facts

On 6 July 2007, the accused, a 28-year-old porter employed by the victim's family, was left at home with the children including Nuwabine Fiona, aged approximately 5-6 years. The victim testified that the accused removed her clothing and his own, placed her on the bed, and put his penis into her vagina. She cried from pain. Her sibling, Maniragaba Lucky, returned home, heard Fiona crying in the accused's room, and banged on the door. The accused opened the door while naked, dressed quickly, and fled the area. Medical examination on 7 July 2007 showed inflammation and abrasions around the victim's labia but no rupture of the hymen. The accused was later arrested in a neighbouring village. He denied the offence and claimed the victim's mother bore a grudge against him.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved the age of the victim to be under 18 years.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved that sexual intercourse occurred.
  3. Whether the prosecution proved the accused's participation in the alleged offence.
  4. Whether the unsworn evidence of the victim required corroboration.
  5. Whether the accused was guilty of attempted defilement where penetration was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of defilement contrary to s.129(1) of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused convicted of attempted defilement contrary to s.129(2) of the Penal Code Act.
  • Accused sentenced to six (6) years imprisonment.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Sexual Offences — Defilement — Elements of Proof
In a prosecution for defilement under s.129(1) of the Penal Code Act, the prosecution must prove three elements: (i) the age of the complainant; (ii) the act of sexual intercourse; and (iii) the accused's alleged participation.
Evidence — Unsworn Evidence of Children — Corroboration Required
Under s.40(3) of the Trial on Indictments Act, the unsworn evidence of a child requires corroboration as a matter of law and cannot alone establish the fact of sexual intercourse and the accused's participation, however truthful the child may appear.
Sexual Offences — Defilement — Degree of Penetration Required
To constitute sexual intercourse for the purposes of defilement, there must be penetration of a penis into the vagina of the victim, however slight. The slightest penetration suffices. The penis need not have fully entered the vagina, and rupture of the hymen is not necessary. It is sufficient if the evidence shows entry of the male sexual organ into the labia or vulva.
Evidence — Sworn Evidence of Children — Corroboration Not Required as Matter of Law
The sworn evidence of a child of tender years need not as a matter of law be corroborated, but the court must warn itself that there is danger in acting on uncorroborated evidence of such a child. The court may act on such evidence if convinced that the child is telling the truth. Any evidence, direct or circumstantial, may suffice as corroboration.
Sexual Offences — Attempted Defilement — Conviction for Lesser Offence
Where the prosecution fails to prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt but proves that the accused completed all necessary preparations to commit defilement by removing clothing and causing injury to the victim's sexual parts in an attempt to have sexual intercourse, the court may convict the accused of attempted defilement under s.129(2) of the Penal Code Act in accordance with s.87 of the Trial on Indictments Act.
Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Flight as Evidence of Guilt
The act of an accused person in fleeing from the scene shortly after the commission of an alleged offence is not the conduct of an innocent person and may be taken as evidence of guilt.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • Christopher Kizito v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Uganda v Turyamureeba Silvano (HCT (HCT) [2009] UGHC 121 (25 November 2009)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.