Court rules age must be proved in defilemnt cases
Evidence adducedJustice Ngugi, while pointing out that the evidence adduced before court pointed at Barno, ruled that an error was made during the hearing of the case. “The prosecution evidence was cogent. It placed the appellant (Barno) at the scene and his identity was not put into question. However, as far as fate would have it, the first misfortune was the manner in which the prosecution handled the case. They forgot to adduce evidence on the age of the victim,” he ruled. The Judge noted that prosecution had initially realised the mistake and applied to recall its witnesses, but a ruling by the trial court declined the application. He pointed out that prosecution did not challenge the ruling.
SEE ALSO :Trader sues DCI over 'fake' goodsThe trial court, in its judgement delivered in September 7, 2015, had conceded that prosecution did not prove the age of the complainant. It, however, held that the facts and evidence established that a sexual offence was committed. However, the High Court ruled that Barno was denied right to fair trial and set him free.
We are undertaking a survey to help us improve our content for you. This will only take 1 minute of your time, please give us your feedback by clicking HERE. All responses will be confidential.