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.
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.
15 Jan 2026
The High Court dismissed the appeal: the trial judge properly assessed the child complainant's detailed and sworn evidence together with supporting medical and forensic evidence; inconsistencies did not fatally undermine credibility; absence of DNA on some items did not negate the totality of corroborative evidence; and the sentence of 15 years imprisonment and four strokes was commensurate and not subject to appellate interference.
12 Jan 2026
The court found prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that defendant used criminal force to outrage the victim's modesty (s354) and voluntarily caused grievous hurt (s325) because the complainant's testimony was consistent, credible and corroborated by SP2 and medical evidence (SP6) establishing compression fracture of L2 and posterior 10th rib fracture; the defendant's bare denial and uncorroborated defence failed to raise reasonable doubt and intent/knowledge was properly inferred from the nature and degree of force used.
17 Dec 2025
The High Court found no error in the Sessions Court's assessment of credibility and facts, upheld the victim's evidence (permissible to convict on uncorroborated child evidence under Act 792), concluded the appellant's defence was a bare denial insufficient to raise reasonable doubt, and held the sentence was within the permissible discretionary range; therefore the appeal and the prosecution's cross-appeal on sentence were dismissed and the conviction and sentence affirmed.
27 Nov 2025
Although the prosecution established a prima facie case and adduced evidence (victim identification, medical report, police report), the defence led credible rebuttal evidence that, when evaluated in totality, raised a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case; accordingly the prosecution failed to prove all elements of Section 376(1) beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted and discharged.
6 Oct 2025
The Sessions Court's acquittal was affirmed because, on the cumulative assessment of the evidence (inconsistencies in the child witness's account, the mother's withdrawal and limited corroborative value, failure to obtain statements from other students, and the plausibility of the defendant's COVID-19 distancing defence), the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2 Oct 2025
The court found the prosecution proved all elements of section 14(a) AKKSTKK 2017 beyond reasonable doubt: the child victim's sworn testimony was credible and unusually convincing and was corroborated by supporting evidence (cousin's account, medical reports). Defence denials and procedural complaints (absence of DNA, vague date, non-compliance with s.28A(2), non-production of certain witnesses) did not create reasonable doubt. Therefore the accused was convicted and sentenced accordingly.
2 Oct 2025
The court found the prosecution proved the offence under s14(a) AKKSTKK 2017 beyond reasonable doubt based on the victim's credible and unusually convincing sworn testimony together with supporting evidence (SP1 account, medical reports, contemporaneous statements). Defence denials, inconsistencies on dates, absence of forensic DNA and noncompliance with s28A(2) did not create reasonable doubt nor render the charge defective; accordingly the accused was convicted.
5 Aug 2025
Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case under s.354 because the complainant's evidence was not unusually convincing, there was no independent corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the offence, the complainant's conduct and long delay in reporting undermined credibility, and the court would not be prepared to convict if the accused remained silent; therefore the accused must be acquitted at the close of the prosecution's case under s.173(f) CPC.