Rape is an offence that comprises the following elements: sexual intercourse involving the victim; without the victim’s consent; and the participation of the accused. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove all the elements beyond reasonable doubt.
As the medical report reasonably inferred from the perspective of the accused that there was consensual sexual intercourse. The first element was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The victim raised alarm that drew in a large crowd, which is how the chairman was alerted and went to the scene of crime. There was also no problem of identification.
The High Court recognized that refugees, especially refugees who are women were particularly vulnerable to sexual exploits. They have no voice in the camps where they live. The High Court took the opportunity to call for special protection for this extremely vulnerable group. The accused was found to be an example of sexual predators that prey upon refugee women in the camps. The accused was sentenced five years imprisonment.
Sexual offence, rape, requirements of the offence of rape, refugee victim, vulnerability of refugees, women refugees, gender-based violence, rape of refugee, women's rights
The accused was indicted on the charge of rape contrary to section 123 & 124 of the Penal Code Act. It was alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent. The accused told the High Court that the complainant was his girlfriend and denied raping her.
The High Court agreed with the assessor that the sexual intercourse between the accused and the victim was without her consent. The High Court relied on its finding based on the proof of the direct evidence of the victim, which was corroborated by the medical evidence. The elements of the crime were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused admitted to having sexual intercourse with the victim. It was non-consensual as per the victim’s account, and the participation of the accused was proved.
The medical report that was admitted in evidence was uncontested, and the accused admitted to having sexual intercourse with the victim. The High Court accepted that the victim raised an alarm that caused others to go to the scene of crime.