MAHAVIR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (MWANZA SUB-REGISTRY) AT MWANZA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1218 OF 2025 (Originating from Criminal Appeal No. 36692 of 2023 in the District Court of Nyamagana at Nyamagana) MAHAVIR RAVISHANKAR SINH…………………………………………APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 12th and 17th March, 2025 KAMANA, J. Mahavir Ravinshakar Sinh, the appellant, was convicted on a charge of rape after a full trial. The charge was preferred under section 130(1) and 2(e) and 131(1)(a) of the Penal Code, Cap. 16 [RE.2002]. He was alleged to have raped LJV, a girl of 14 years of age on 30th June, 2023 at Silvini-Mbalimbe, Nyamagana in the Mwanza Region. According to LJV who testified as PW4, the appellant was her mother’s boyfriend. On the fateful day, the appellant went twice to LJV’s home where she resides with her mother. In those two times, the appellant was there to look for LJV’s mother. It was on the second visit that the appellant entered the house. Therein, he pulled his knife and forced his phallus into LJV’s pudendum. While inserting his phallus into 1 the LJV’s pudendum, the appellant threatened to kill her if she would scream for help. PW4 told the trial court that after raping her, the appellant left her retiring to her bed after putting on her nightdress. On 1st July, 2023 which was the next day after the fateful day, her mother came to her room and saw blood stains on her nightdress and bed. She inquired about the blood stains and she told her that she was in her monthlies. Due to her mother’s nosy, she left the house and went to Esther’s house who was her friend. According to PW4, she decided to go to Esther’s house as she was afraid to tell her mother about the incident because the perpetrator was her mother’s boyfriend. LJV testified that after spending two days at her friend’s house, she went to the street chairman’s house whom she referred to as Malugu. She went there after she heard her mother was looking for her in order to take him to the chairman. At the chairman’s house, PW4 narrated about what had befallen her. On the next day, the chairman ordered the militiaman to call her mother. When her mother came to the chairman’s house, she took her to Igogo Police Station where she recorded her statement and was taken to Sekou Toure Hospital for examination. 2 LJV’s mother who goes by the name of Salma Ramadhan Nassib testified as PW3. She evidenced that on the fateful date, she returned home around 2200 Hrs. Upon her arrival, she did not find LJV in her room. She decided to roam around the street in her endeavour to look for her daughter. Her efforts proved futile and she decided to go back home. According to PW3, on the morning of 1st July, 2023 she went to her daughter’s room. Therein, she found her daughter with red eyes and scratches on her neck. When she was asking about her condition, she saw her nightdress on the floor which was stained by blood which also stained her bed. Since she knew that her daughter had completed her menses, she decided to examine her and inspect her room. In the course of examination, she found LJV with swollen vagina which was discharging male sperms. When she asked what happened to her, LJV stated that she was still in her menstrual flow though she seemed to hide something as she was crying. Faced with that situation, PW3 locked her in the room and went to the neighbours to inquire if they had seen anyone entering LJV’s room. One of LJV’s friends told her that she should go to Plazima Hotel because she normally goes there. She went to the Hotel and was told by the 3 manager of the hotel that he had only seen her once in the company of her three friends. After such a reply, she went back home and ordered JVC that they should go to the police station. JVC ran away. Being in that situation, PW3 went to Nyegezi Bus Stand Police Post to report the matter. Thereat, she was told that she should return to the post to report the matter after the expiry of twenty-four hours. Before the expiry of the twenty-four hours, LJV came back home to take her clothes. This time again, PW3 told her that they should go to the police station. She did not obey her mother’s order, and as she did earlier, she ran away. LJV’s conduct made PW3 go to Igogo Police Station where she was told that they could not open a file at night. Having been told that, PW3 hired a motorcycle commonly known as bodaboda and went around in search of LJV. In the course of the said comb, one of the bodaboda riders told her “Huyo msichana alikuwa na mhindi mmoja walikuwa wanatafuta guest.” This was after showing the rider her daughter’s photograph. After receiving such information, PW3 rode to various guest houses looking for her daughter. At Jemmy Guest House, she met the attendant one Hamidu who told her that a girl in the company of an Indian man was 4 in the said guest house and they left a few minutes ago after he told the man that the girl was a minor following her yells. Equipped with that information, PW3 went to the appellant’s residence to look for her daughter because she was told that he was with her daughter. Thereat, he asked a watchman to call the appellant and was told that neither the appellant nor her daughter was present. Unwaveringly, she went back home to ascertain if LJV had returned home. Since LJV was not at home, she asked her neighbours to report to the chairman when they saw LJV. The next morning found PW3 at the appellant’s house. Thereat, she made a scene that precipitated one Pandey to look for the appellant in the house. However, the appellant was not in the house. From there she went to Igogo police Station where her complaints were registered. According to PW3, LJV was arrested on 4th July, 2023 by a militiaman whom she paid to look for her. LJV was arrested when she was coming from the chairman’s house. The witness testified that LJV was taken to the Ward Office before being taken to Igogo Police Station where she was issued with a PF3. On 5th July, 2023, LJV was taken to Sekou Toure for examination since on 4th July, 2023 she could not get a police officer to escort them. According to the witness, the examination revealed that LJV’s vagina had been penetrated more than once. 5 According to the witness, from the police station, she and LJV went to Margaret Kusekwa’s house who was her friend. The reason to go there was that she was afraid that LJV would run away. She testified that when they were at Kusekwa’s house, LJV told them that the appellant raped her at their home after threatening her with a knife. She testified further that LJV told them that the appellant raped her for the second time at Jemmy Lodge. Concerning her relationship with the appellant, the witness testified that she was her paramour. In the course of the courtship, she invited him to her house and introduced him to her children. PW3 testified that her relationship with the appellant turned sour after she refused the appellant’s request to use her house as an office of the gay foundation. Dr. Datius Wilbert (PW1) was the one who examined LJV. In his evidence, he testified that on 5th July, 2023 while at Sekou Toure Hospital he examined LJV, a girl of fourteen years at that time. His examination revealed that the LJV’s vagina was penetrated by a blunt object. He tendered a PF 3 which was admitted as Exh.PE 1. According to Exh.PE1, the nature of complaints was being raped several times by her stepfather whereby the recent incident took place three days before the examination. 6 WP 4519 Det. Sgt. Rosemary testified as PW5. She evidenced that on 4th July, 2023 she was assigned to investigate the complaints laid by PW3 that her daughter was raped by the appellant. She summoned the appellant who upon interrogation denied committing the offence. The witness stated that on 4th July, 2023 she furnished LJV with a PF3 for medical examination before preparing the case file which was taken to Central Police Station. The witness stated further that LJV told her that she was not raped by the appellant. WP7694 Det.Cpl. Winifrida who was assigned to investigate the complaints on 9th October, 2023 testified as PW2. The witness evidenced that LJV told her that she was raped by the appellant on 30th June, 2023. When called upon to defend his case, the appellant denied the allegations leveled against him. He admitted to knowing PW3 as his former girlfriend since they met in February, 2023 at Cask Bar. The witness stated that their relationship came to an end around May, 2023 when he stopped picking up her calls. He cited the reason for parting ways as PW3’s bad behaviours. Based on the evidence adduced, the trial court found that the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused of the offence of rape and imprisoned him for a term of thirty years. In convicting the accused, the trial court was satisfied that the 7 evidence adduced by PW4 was sufficient to prove that she was raped by the appellant. The reasoning of the court was found in the principle that the evidence of the victim suffices to base the conviction on it. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal which is premised on six grounds as follows: One, the trial court erred in law and fact by convicting him based on the evidence of the victim who was not credible as she failed to report the incident and to name the appellant at the earliest opportunity; two, the trial court erred in law and fact by relying on the contradictory evidence; three, the trial court erred in law and fact by failing to consider the appellant’s evidence; four, the trial court erred in law and fact by convicting him without assigning plausible reasons; five, the trial court erred in law and fact by convicting him without proof of the victim’s age; and six, the trial court erred in law and fact by convicting him while the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt as it failed to field key witnesses. When the appeal was set for a hearing, the appellant was represented by Merss. Machele Mkaruka and Said Juma Said, learned Advocates. The respondent had the services of Ms. Stella Minja, learned State Attorney. 8 Submitting in support of the appeal, Mr. Mkaruka prefaced by abandoning the fifth ground. He further informed the court that he would jointly argue the fourth and sixth grounds. Submitting the first ground, Mr. Mkaruka contended that PW4 was not a credible witness as she mentioned the appellant as a culprit on 9th October, 2023 which was more than three months from 30th June, 2023 when the offence was alleged to have been committed. The learned Counsel contended that the incredibility of PW4 is further manifested by PW5 who in her evidence testified that on 4th July, 2023 when she interviewed LJV she told her that she was not raped by the appellant. Mr. Mkaruka held the view that PW4’s failure to name the appellant at the earliest opportunity as the one who raped her puts her credibility into question. He fortified his arguments by citing the case of DPP v. Juma Chuwa Abdallah and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2018- CAT-Unreported in which the Court of Appeal held the view that the ability of the victim to name the accused at the earliest opportunity assures the reliability of the evidence. Cementing, Mr. Mkaruka argued that although PW4 testified that she was put under threat as the appellant threatened him with a knife before raping her, she did not state that the threat continued for how long as she mentioned the appellant as the culprit on 9th October, 2023. In his 9 view, failure to state the period in which she was under the threat dented the prosecution’s case. Bolstering his position, the learned Counsel cited the case of Yusta v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2015-CAT (Unreported). On the second ground which is about contradictory evidence, Mr. Mkaruka argued that the evidence of PW5 and PW2 contradicts each other. He explained that while PW2 stated that PW5 took the PF3 to the hospital, PW5 stated that the PF3 was taken to the hospital without an investigator. He asserted further that PW3’s evidence did not reflect the charge sheet. Amplifying, he contended that while PW3 stated that the victim was raped at her house and Jemmy Lodge, the charge sheet stated that the victim was raped at her home and was raped once. Arguing for the third ground, Mr. Said, learned Counsel, contended that the trial court did not consider the appellant’s evidence that he quarreled with PW3. He argued that the trial court concluded that the appellant did not assert that he quarreled with PW3. He held the view that failure to consider the appellant’s evidence vitiated the conviction. He buttressed his stance by referring this court to the case of Leonard Mwanashoka v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 2014-CAT (Unreported). 10 As for the fourth and sixth grounds, Mr. Said contended that the case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He argued that the prosecutions failed to marshal key witnesses such as Hamidu who told PW3 that the victim was with an Indian man in the guest in which he was an attendant. Mr. Said contended that the street chairman was a key witness as PW4 testified to spend a night in his house. He held the view that by not fielding the street chairman, the case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned counsel went ahead to argue that Esther who was mentioned by PW4 as her friend was a key witness as PW4 stated that she spent two days in her house. He held the view that it was necessary for the prosecution to field Esther as a witness to clear doubts as to who was Esther, her age and with whom Esther was living. Mr. Said held the view that the prosecution is required to field witnesses who are connected with the transactions in question. That being the case, the Republic had the duty to field those witnesses to clear the doubts. In strengthening this argument, he cited the case of Lazaro Kalonga v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 2008-CAT (Unreported). 11 Mr. Said contended that though the victim’s evidence is the best in sexual offences, it was not intended that the said evidence should be taken as gospel truth without subjecting the same to scrutiny. In this, he referred to the case of Mohamed Said v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2017-CAT (Unreported). He concluded that the trial court convicted the appellant without supplying the reasons for that. Responding, Ms. Minja, learned State Attorney premised her submission by not supporting the appeal. On the first ground, the learned State Attorney despite conceding that PW4 failed to mention the name of the accused at the earliest opportunity held the view that the delay does not render her incredible. She contended that it did not take the victim more than three months to mention the appellant as a person who raped her. Explaining, the learned State Attorney contended that according to the records, PW3 testified that on 4th July, 2023 when they were at Kusekwa’s house, PW4 told them that the appellant raped her. The learned State Attorney held the view that PW5’s evidence that PW4 told her that she was not raped by the appellant did not affect PW4’s credibility although after more than three months she mentioned the appellant as a culprit when interviewed by PW2. Ms. Minja contended that 12 LJV was a credible witness as she described how the appellant inserted his phallus into her pudendum. She held the view that PW4 explained the delay which was caused by being afraid to mention the appellant to her mother because the appellant was her mother’s boyfriend. The learned State Attorney argued that PW4’s failure to mention the appellant at the earliest opportunity does not go to the root of the case. She supported his argument by citing the case of Godson Dan Kimaro v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2019-CAT (Unreported) in which it was stated that the delay in reporting the crime due to fear, reprisal or shame does not affect the credibility of the victim. The learned State Attorney also cited the cases Marwa Wangiti Mwita and Another v. Republic [2002] TLR 39; and Chacha Jeremia Murimi and others v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 551-CAT (Unreported). On the second ground, Ms. Minja conceded that there were contradictions which she categorized as slight as they do not go to the root of the case. He held the view that PW3’s evidence that PW4 was raped by the appellant at home and Jemmy Lodge did not affect PW4’s evidence that she was raped by the appellant at home. She argued that 13 by evidencing that she was raped at home, the prosecution proved what was alleged in the charge sheet. As to the contradiction between the evidence of PW5 that the victim did not tell her that she was not raped by the appellant and the victim’s evidence that she was raped by the victim, Ms. Minja implored this court to ignore the evidence of PW5 as it is hearsay and consider that the best evidence in sexual offences comes from the victim. Concerning the third ground, the learned State Attorney dismissed it as baseless. She argued that the trial court evaluated and considered the appellant’s evidence that the case was fabricated by PW3 after her relationship with the appellant went sour. She held the view that the trial court considered the case proved as the appellant failed to establish if there was any feud between him and PW4 that made the latter fabricate the case against the former. Ms. Minja beseeched this court if it considers that the appellant’s evidence was not considered by the trial court to exercise its powers as the first appellate court to consider the appellant’s evidence and reach a correct decision. On the fourth ground, Ms. Minja contended that in convicting the accused, the trial court assigned plausible reasons. She held the view that the court was satisfied that PW4’s evidence proved that she was raped by the appellant and that the trial court had no reason to disbelieve the 14 evidence that was adduced by PW4 as every witness is entitled to credence. She further stated that the trial court reasoned that the victim did not report the incident at the earliest opportunity as she was afraid because the appellant was her mother’s husband. Arguing against the sixth ground, Ms. Minja contended that the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. She amplified that the ingredients of rape as per section 130 (1) and 2 (e) of the Penal Code which are penetration, the age of the victim and the fact that the accused is a culprit were proved. She contended further that the prosecution is at liberty to decide which witness is necessary to prove its case. Fortified by that position, the learned State Attorney held the view that the street chairman, Hamidu and Esther were not key witnesses as they did not witness the incident. Ms. Minja referred this court to the case of Selemani Makumba v. Republic [2006] T.L.R. 376 in which it was held that the best evidence in sexual evidence comes from the victim. Rejoining, Mr. Mkaruka reiterated his and Mr. Said’s submission in chief. After going through the grounds of appeal, submissions by the learned minds before me and the records of the trial court, the grounds invite this court to determine whether the prosecution proved the case 15 beyond a reasonable doubt. Before determining this appeal, it should be noted that this court being the first appellate court has the power to objectively reevaluate the evidence adduced at the trial and come to its findings. This position was pronounced numerously by the Court of Appeal including in the case of Siza Patrice v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2010- (Unreported) in which it was held: ‘We understand that it is a settled law that a first appeal is in the form of a rehearing. As such, the first appellate Court has a duty to re-evaluate the entire evidence in an objective manner and arrive at its own findings of fact, if necessary.’ In this matter, the only eyewitness who testified about the incident was PW4 who was the victim. As a matter of principle, every witness is entitled to credence unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. This position was stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Goodluck Kyando v. Republic [2006] T.L R 363. In the appellate stage, there are several ways of determining the credibility of a witness. These include an assessment of the coherence of the witness’s evidence. Also, the credibility of the witness is determined by considering the evidence adduced by the witness in relation to the 16 evidence adduced by other witnesses. This was stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Shabani Daudi v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2000-CAT (Unreported), as follows: ‘The credibility of a witness can also be determined in two ways: one, when assessing the coherence of the testimony of that witness. Two, when the testimony of that witness is considered in relation with the evidence of other witnesses, including that of the accused person.’ In her evidence, LJV stated that the appellant, who was his mother’s boyfriend, raped her at her home on 30th June, 2023. She further testified that she ran away as she was afraid to tell her mother about the incident as the appellant was her mother’s boyfriend. As rightly argued by Ms. Minja, it is the position of the law that the delay in reporting the incident or mentioning the culprit at the earliest opportunity does not affect the credibility of the victim of sexual offences if a delay is occasioned by a fear of reprisal or shame. See: Godson Dan Kimaro v. Republic (Supra). However, I am not ready to apply the said principle due to the circumstances of this case as would be depicted in the course of this judgment. From the records, the first person to whom the incident was reported by LJV was the street chairman whom she referred to as Malugu. 17 According to her, she went to the street chairman on 3rd July, 2023 and spent a night there. She testified that while there, she briefly narrated the story that led her to run away from her mother. With this evidence, it is obvious that the street chairman was the first person who was informed about what had befallen PW4 to the extent of deciding to run away from her mother. This means that the street chairman was a key witness as he was the first person to hear from the horse’s mouth what had befallen PW4. The law is settled that when the victim reports the offence to another person, such another person is expected to testify to corroborate the evidence that the victim reported the incident to him. When such another person is not fielded to testify, the victim’s credibility is shaken. This position was stated in the case of Juma Omary v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 2020-CAT (Unreported) in which it was held: ‘Ordinarily if the witness mentions a suspect to someone, that other person is expected to corroborate that evidence in court. This position was taken in the case of Samwel Nyamhanga v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2017 (unreported), where the Court while faced with a similar situation stated as follows: 18 "In the present appeal, there is no evidence suggesting that the appellant was mentioned at the earliest opportune time as found by the first appellate court. The only available evidence is that PW1 knew the appellant before without further explanation on how he came to know him. He said, he mentioned the appellant at the time when he returned PF3 but we are not told whether that was the first available opportunity for him to do so. There being no further evidence coming from the person to whom the ordeal was reported we failed to find credence in PW 1's evidence.’ Based on the above excerpt, it is my finding that PW4’s evidence that she narrated to the street chairman the reasons that led her to run away from her mother was not corroborated by the latter. This puts PW4’s credibility into question. From the records, the complainant was PW3 who is PW4’s mother. According to her evidence, she went to Igogo Police Station on 2nd July, 2023 following the act of PW4 running away after she found that her pudendum was discharging male sperms. According to her, on 4th July, 2023 when she was at Kusekwa’s house after returning from Igogo Police 19 Station, LJV told her and Kusekwa that the appellant was the one who raped her on 30th June, 2023 and on 1st July, 2023 at Jemmy Lodge. From the records, this was the very first time in which PW3 was informed by LJV that she was raped by the appellant. However, from her evidence, PW4 did not testify that she informed her mother that the appellant was the person who raped her on 30th June, 2023 and on 1st July, 2023. With the absence of such evidence from PW4, I am of the considered opinion that PW3’s testimony that PW4 informed her that the appellant raped her is so wanting. From the records, LJV testified that on 4th July, 2023 she made her statement at Igogo Police Station. However, she did not testify that when she made the statement, she mentioned the appellant as a person who raped her. The absence of evidence that when making the statement she mentioned the appellant is reflected in the evidence of PW5, the first investigator, who testified that PW4 did not tell her that the appellant was a person who raped her. With such evidence, it is my view that up to 4 th July, 2023, the name of the appellant as the person who raped PW4 was yet to be disclosed by PW4. From PW2’s evidence, on 9th October, 2023, LJV mentioned the appellant as a person who raped her. That was more than three months since the alleged incident occurred and the first statement was made to 20 PW5. Again, this evidence is not supported by PW4 who stated nothing about making the statement on 9th October, 2023. At this point, it is my conclusion that upon reviewing LJV’s evidence, there is no evidence that on the 4th July, 2023 she mentioned the appellant as a culprit when making her statement to PW5. Likewise, from her evidence, there is no evidence that on 4th July, 2023 LJV mentioned the appellant to PW3 as the person who raped her. Further, it is my holding that PW2’s evidence that LJV told her that she was raped by the appellant, in the absence of LJV’s evidence to that effect, remains unproven and in fact, hearsay. Having concluded that the question that ensues is how the appellant found himself charged with the offence. My analysis of PW3’s evidence convinces me that she was the one who suggested that the appellant was the one that raped PW4. Her suggestions were based on her search endeavours, if she really searched for her. In her evidence, she testified that on the night of 1st July, 2023 riding on a bodaboda in search of PW4 she was told by one of the riders that he saw the girl in the company of an Indian man looking for a guest house. She evidenced that the rider recognized the girl after he saw her photograph. PW3 testified that he combed various guests until when she 21 was told by Hamidu, an attendant of Jemmy Guest House, that he saw the girl and the Indian man as they were in his guest before leaving after he intervened following the girl’s yells. From there, PW3 started to look for the appellant. In my view, PW3’s story leaves much to be desired. One, PW3 did not testify about the reasons that led her to conclude that it was the appellant and no other Indian man who was seen by the rider and Hamidu. Unfortunately, neither the rider nor Hamidu was called to testify in support of PW3’s evidence. I understand that the charge sheet is about the incident that took place on 30th June, 2023. However, PW3’s evidence is relevant as to how she insinuated that the appellant was a person who raped PW4. Two, when she was cross-examined, PW3 stated that she was informed by Zefania Juma that her daughter had love affairs with the appellant. Zefania Juma was not called to testify on that. PW3 did not testify about the circumstances that led her to conclude that the appellant was the one who raped her daughter taking into consideration that, as I have already concluded, her daughter did not disclose the ordeal to her. 22 Before I conclude, it is my considered opinion that the best evidence in sexual offences comes from the victim. See: Selemani Makumba (Supra). However, the victim’s evidence must be evaluated to test its veracity. In this case, despite testifying in detail how she was raped by the appellant, LJV did not testify to having reported the incident to any person other than the street chairman who was not called to testify. Her mother’s and PW2’s evidence that they were informed by LJV about the incident was not supported by her evidence. That being the case, I found the witness not credible. In reaching this finding, I am guided by the position of the Court of Appeal in the case of Safinati Simon Ndekoya v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 2020-CAT (Unreported). In the said case, the Court held the view that sexual offences are easy to allege but difficult to prove and defend. The Court stated: ‘In determining the appeal, we shall be guided by the principle of reputable antiquity that is; sexual offences are offences easy to allege but difficult to prove and difficult to defend, though never so innocent laid down by the Lord Chief Justice of the Kings' Bench, Sir Mathew Hale.’ 23 It is indisputable that the prosecution proved that the victim’s age when she was raped was fourteen years which falls within the ambits of section 131(1) of the Code. This was as per the evidence of PW3 and PW4. Further, it is not in dispute that PW4 was penetrated. This was testified by PW1. According to Exh.PE1, LJV complained that she was raped by her stepfather several times whereby the latest rape was done three days before the examination which was conducted on 5th July, 2023. For the sake of arguments, three days before the examination was on 2nd July, 2023. Assuming what was stated in PF 3 is true, the allegations that LJV was raped on 30th June, 2023 would stand unproven. As to who committed the offence, as I reasoned hereinabove, the issue is marred with uncertainty. No one saw the appellant raping LJV. Further, LJV herself did not name the appellant as a person who raped her before testifying in the trial court. It is my considered view that a witness who did not name the accused before the trial is worth no credence. Naming the offender for the first time during the trial diminishes the credibility of the witness and suggests that the witness was tutored. In the context of this case, LJV is worth no credence as she mentioned the appellant for the first time during the trial. 24 It is only PW3 who started to accuse the appellant that he was responsible for raping her daughter while she had no information from LJV that it was the appellant who raped her. In such circumstances, I do not hesitate to hold that PW3 had something sinister against the appellant arising from their broken relationship. Otherwise, how could she start to look for her daughter at the appellant’s residence without having information from the victim? Her actions would have been reasonable if she had been informed by LJV. Likewise, her actions would be considered meaningful by this court if they would have been supported by the rider and Hamidu whom she evidenced that they saw her daughter with an Indian man. Further, her evidence that LJV was roaming around with the appellant is unreasonable as it is unthinkable for a girl who was raped a day before under the knifepoint to be in the company of her tormentor moving freely from one guest house to another. In the final analysis, it is my holding that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the conviction and sentence are quashed and set aside. I further order the release of Mahavir Ravinshakar Sinh from the prison with immediate effect, unless he is otherwise held for lawful cause. Order accordingly. 25 Right To Appeal Explained. DATED at MWANZA this 17th of March, 2025. KS KAMANA JUDGE The Judgment was delivered this 17th day of March, 2025 in the presence of the appellant, Ms. Minja, learned State Attorney for the respondent and Mr. Said, learned Counsel for the appellant. KS KAMANA JUDGE 26