4 May 2026
The High Court held the victim's testimony was unusually convincing and was corroborated by admissible medical records; there was no suppression of material evidence and no misdirection by the trial court, therefore the conviction and 12-year imprisonment are safe; however the whipping term was reduced from 12 to 8 strokes as excessive.
4 May 2026
The High Court held the Sessions Court correctly found a prima facie case and that the victim's testimony, unusually convincing and corroborated by contemporaneous medical records admissible as public documents, proved penetration beyond reasonable doubt; no adverse inference was warranted because the doctor was offered and could have been subpoenaed by the defence; absence of DNA did not undermine the case given the time lapse; conviction and 12-year imprisonment affirmed but the corporal punishment was excessive and reduced from 12 to 8 strokes.
29 Apr 2026
Court convicted because forensic evidence (P25) established accused's semen on the victim's clothing and medical evidence (P9) showed a fresh hymen tear consistent with recent penetration; notwithstanding some inconsistencies in witness statements, the totality of forensic and medical evidence and the inability of the defence to raise reasonable doubt led the court to find the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and to reject the alibi/denial.
12 Apr 2026
On maximum evaluation the prosecution proved the elements of the amended charge under s376(3): credible, consistent testimony of the child victim corroborated by medical and investigative evidence established penetration, lack of consent and prohibited familial relationship; defence amounted to uncorroborated denial and failed to raise reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence under s376(3) are justified.
17 Mar 2026
Court assessed that an appropriate sentence after a full trial would not exceed 10 years given the facts and mitigation; applying a one‑third reduction for the guilty plea and other mitigatory factors produced a sentence of 4 years imprisonment, with counselling during incarceration and two years police supervision on release.
27 Feb 2026
The appellate court upheld the conviction because the trial judge's finding that the complainant's testimony was clear, detailed, consistent and corroborated by independent witnesses and documentary evidence was reasonable on the record; deficiencies in forensic/CCTV evidence and the existence of an old hymenal tear did not render the prosecution case unsafe, and there was no demonstrable misdirection or perversity in the trial court's assessment of credibility.
5 Feb 2026
Given the victim's age, the accused's exploitation of a vulnerable child, the seriousness and repeated nature of the offences, and after affording mitigation for the guilty plea, the court found 9 years imprisonment and one stroke per count to be a proportionate sentence; sentences were ordered to run concurrently and ancillary orders under AKSTK ss.26 and 27 were imposed.
23 Jan 2026
The High Court held there was no error in the trial court's findings: the prosecution proved the elements of rape under s376(1) (sexual intercourse, penetration and lack of consent) based on the complainant's credible testimony supported by corroborative background and medical/psychiatric evidence; the accused's defence amounted to bare denial and did not raise reasonable doubt; both the accused's and prosecution's appeals were dismissed and the conviction and sentence of 10 years' imprisonment and three strokes of rotan were upheld, to commence immediately with no stay.
23 Jan 2026
The High Court was correct to infer that an order directing the accused to enter his defence imported that a prima facie case had been made out; after evaluating the totality of evidence including the complainant's credible testimony and supporting factors (complainant's background and mental health effects, accused's status and conduct, chronology and post-event conduct) the elements of rape under s.376(1) were established beyond reasonable doubt; the accused's defence was disbelief/denial with material contradictions and failed to raise reasonable doubt; and the sentence of 10 years impriso…
23 Jan 2026
The High Court upheld the Sessions Court conviction because (1) the High Court order for the accused to enter his defence legitimately permitted the trial judge to treat a prima facie case as established; (2) the prosecution proved the elements of rape under section 376(1) by the victim's credible account corroborated by background, psychiatric evidence and post-event conduct; (3) the accused's denials were inconsistent, uncorroborated and did not raise reasonable doubt; and (4) the sentence of 10 years imprisonment and three strokes was not grossly inadequate on the facts.