CR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM SUB- REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17584 /2024 (Arising from the judgment and decree of Criminal Case No. 55/2023 issued by Hon. F. W Mwakatobo RM. Of the Kigamboni District Court) AHAMAD ABDUL AZIZ KIGOMBA ...……………………. APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC…………. ……………………….............RESPONDENT JUDGMENT MKWIZU,J Ahamadi Abdul Aziz Kigomba was arraigned at the district court of Kigamboni for rape, c/s 130(1)(2)(e) and 131 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16 R.E. 2022. The prosecution alleged that on several occasions between December 2022 and March 2023, in the Mirungu-Kibada area of Kigamboni District, Dar Es Salaam Region, the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim, a sixteen-year-old girl. The accused denied the charge. Six witnesses were called to prove the prosecution's case. In her testimony, the victim (PW1) described how she was raped. In December 2022, the accused seduced her while she was at his office to transfer 1 music to her flash drive. After helping her, he gave her a piece of paper with his phone number, which she later discarded. The following day, while teaching the accused's younger sister, he raped her after giving her a drink that made her lose consciousness. When she regained awareness, she found herself on the floor, bleeding. She confronted the accused, who did not respond. The victim did not inform anyone about the incident due to her strict parents. The next day, she encountered the accused again, who forced her to go to his house. He dragged her into his room, undressed her, and raped her, warning her not to tell anyone. Later, while teaching the accused's sister, the accused again pulled her to his bedroom and raped her a second time. She did not scream as he covered her mouth. After some time, her grandmother discovered she was four months pregnant during a hospital examination. When asked by her aunt, Sophia (PW5), about the pregnancy, she revealed that the accused was responsible. The victim, along with her family, confronted the accused at his office, where his relatives advised them to report him to the police due to prior warnings about his behaviour. They went to Kibada police station, received a PF3, and returned to the hospital, where her pregnancy was confirmed. PW1 also identified the accused, noting his tattoos: one with 2 the number 21 on his hand and another on his chest that said "I miss mom." During re-examination, she confirmed that the first rape occurred in December 2022 and the last in March 2023. The victim (PW1) was supported in her testimony by her grandmother (PW3) and her aunt (PW5), who confirmed that on June 6, 2023, they discovered she was pregnant. When asked who was responsible, PW1 identified the accused, stating he had raped her three times on different occasions. They accompanied PW1 to the accused's office and then to his home, where they spoke to the accused's aunt and uncle about the incidents. Following this, they reported the accused to Kibada police station and took PW1 to Kisiwani hospital, where a medical examination revealed she was four months pregnant and had been penetrated. PW3’s account was further supported by a medical doctor (PW6), who examined PW1 on June 6, 2023, and confirmed that she had no hymen and was indeed pregnant. He advised them to return for an ultrasound test the next day, June 7, 2023, which confirmed that PW1 was four months and five days pregnant. PW6 presented the PF3 document to the court, which was accepted as Exhibit P2, fortifying the evidence provided by PW1. 3 In his defense, the accused denied all allegations made by the prosecution, claiming he did not know the victim (PW1) and had no relationship with her. He described an incident on June 6, 2023, when PW1 called him at his office, which he did not answer. He stated that PW1's mother later informed him of PW1's pregnancy, but he insisted he did not know her. When they visited his house to discuss the issue, he denied impregnating PW1, which led to an altercation with her father, resulting in his assault before being taken to the police station. The accused's defence was supported by his mother (DW2), who learned of his arrest while in Mbeya. After returning to Dar es Salaam, she visited the police station. She spoke with PW1's grandmother, who mentioned the allegations and requested a refund for PW1’s school fees, which she accepted but did not follow up on afterwards. Accused’s sister (DW3) also testified that she was friends with PW1 from primary school and had no knowledge of any relationship between her brother and PW1. She noted that PW1 visited her home to greet her but stated there was no inappropriate conduct. At the end of the trial, the trial court found in favour of the prosecution. It found the prosecution's evidence to be credible and reliable. It convicted the accused of rape and ultimately sentenced him to 30 years 4 imprisonment. The appellant is aggrieved. He has come with seventeen (17) grounds of appeal challenging both the conviction and sentence on the following main complaints i. The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7,8,9, 10,11,12, and 15 challenge the prosecution's case as not being proved beyond reasonable doubt. ii. The 13th grounds attacked the trial court for failure to evaluate the evidence iii. The 14ths grounds challenge the trial court for failure to consider the defence iv. 16th ground is on the defective charge v. The 17th ground challenges the trial magistrate for delivering the judgment in English, despite the appellant being unrepresented and present in person. By leave of the court, this appeal was disposed of by written submissions. In the course of his submissions, the appellant dropped grounds 6 and 8. The appellant's submission regarding the first ground is that the charge levelled against the accused remained unproven to the required standards. He contended that the evidence presented by PW1 failed to substantiate the offence and the accused’s culpability. Specifically, he 5 said, the medical examination conducted by the doctor did not provide legal proof of penetration, presenting only evidence of the victim's pregnancy, especially considering that the medical report was made four months after the alleged rape. And even if penetration were to be established, it could not be directly linked to the appellant due to the elapsed time since the alleged assault. He attributed the delay in reporting the incident by the victim to the prosecution's failure to meet its burden of proof. He argued that, as the victim was 16 years old at the time of the alleged offence, she should have reported the incident without delay. The appellant maintained that the victim's claim that she refrained from reporting the rape out of fear of her grandmother did not hold evidential weight. The appellant further posited that, given the victim's age, it was reasonable to infer that she may have had prior sexual relationships with other individuals before the allegedly wrongful act. Consequently, relying solely on her pregnancy was insufficient for establishing the guilt of the appellant, especially in the absence of definitive evidence linking the pregnancy to him. He argued that the prosecution should have pursued DNA testing to confirm paternity, a step that was not undertaken. 6 Pinpointing contradictions within the prosecution’s case, the appellant noted that the victim alleged multiple instances of rape occurring at the appellant’s residence; yet, she did not raise an alarm at the time or report the incidents to her family or authorities, which further dented her credibility stressing that PW1’s evidence lacked truthfulness and thereby held no evidential weight. The appellant also contended that the charge of rape against him was unsupported by medical evidence, pointing out that the doctor’s examination only confirmed the victim’s pregnancy and did not establish whether she had been raped. He reiterated that the analysis of the medical examination documented on page 23 of the proceedings only addressed pregnancy and did not provide clarity on the allegations of rape. Moreover, the appellant criticised the trial court's reliance on uncorroborated evidence, particularly the unfounded assertion that the appellant had a tattoo without substantial evidence or verification to support such claims. He blamed the trial court for giving undue weight to the evidence of PW2, 7 PW3, PW4, and PW5, whose statements were largely hearsay and did not reflect firsthand accounts of the alleged crime. He cited the proceedings on pages 53 and 54, noting that PW6 did not adequately establish his qualifications as a medical practitioner, thereby casting doubt on the validity of his evidence. He highlighted discrepancies between the victim's testimony and that of PW6 regarding the examination results. Specifically, while the victim reported undergoing laboratory tests that confirmed pregnancy, PW6’s account states that he visually examined the victim's vaginal area and found no evidence of trauma, tension, or other indicators of assault, raising considerable doubt regarding the validity of their testimonies credibility. He believes that the trial court’s conviction was unfounded because the prosecution failed to present clear evidence regarding the timing of the alleged rape. He emphasised that the principle of best evidence in sexual offence cases demands that the victim's account be understood in context; even when this doctrine is applied, it will not support the prosecution’s case due to the uncorroborated nature of the victim's testimony. 8 The appellant contended that the trial court committed both legal and factual errors in its evaluation of the evidence, resulting in an incorrect verdict. He highlighted that the conviction relied on inconsistent statements from prosecution witnesses. He emphasised the shortcomings in the prosecution's case, particularly concerning the victim's delayed report, which could imply that her silence was due to her inability to identify her attacker or other reasons. Additionally, he noted the hearsay evidence from PW2, PW3, PW4, and PW5 that did not support the charges against the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant claimed that the charge was defective for lacking a proper description of the alleged offense and did not specify the exact timing of the incident, contrary to the law. Lastly, he argued that the judgment was issued in English, which substantially hindered his ability to comprehend the proceedings and contributed to mental anguish, especially as he lacked representation at trial. The appellant maintained that the trial was demonstrably biased and thus unfair, fundamentally violating the principles of natural justice and due process, particularly as articulated in Article 13(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977, as amended . He cited Kidungu Francis Jackson Mussa v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2010, to underscore that 9 the principle of a fair trial includes the accused’s right to follow the proceedings and the associated implications. Consequently, he urged that the trial's inherent unfairness rendered the proceedings nullity. The learned State Attorney for the respondent supported the conviction and sentence of the appellant, grouping the appellant's grounds into five categories. The first group, which included grounds 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, and 15, argued that the prosecution's evidence was weak, contradictory, and uncorroborated, thus failing to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The second group, which covered grounds 4 and 9, focused on the necessity of DNA evidence to prove the offence and the paternity of the victim's child. The third group, which included grounds 5, 13, and 14, was that the trial magistrate did not adequately evaluate the evidence presented by both the appellant and the respondent. Ground 16, which formed the fourth group, that the conviction was based on a defective charge, while ground 17, in which the judgment was read in English, caused mental distress to the appellant. In addressing the first group, the state attorney reiterated that the prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and 4any doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. He pointed out that the 10 victim's age and the occurrence of penetration were adequately established through testimony and corroborative evidence, and the victim correctly identified the appellant. The decision in Joseph Gerald @ Mdomvi Vs Republic Criminal Appeal No 680 of 2021 ( Unreported) was cited on the point adding that, PW2, the victim’s mother managed to prove that PW1 was under the age of majority since she was born in 5th day of September 2006 the fact that was supported by a birth certificate (exhibit P1)admitted without objection at pages 27-28 of trial court proceedings. On proving penetration, PW1 told the court that appellant did insert his manhood into PW1 vagina. In its findings that prosecution proved penetration, and while relying on the principle that best evidence comes from the victim, the trial magistrate was cautious to find other corroborative evidence from other witnesses to test the credibility and truthfulness of PW1 testimony; She refereed the court to page 13 of the judgment; the decision in Joseph Gerald Mdomvi (supra ), and Sellemani Makumba v. R [2006] T.L.R 379. Submitting on the last ingredient of the offence of rape, it was said PW1 well knew the accused by name and face and, by explaining to the court how often he had seen him to the extent of mentioning the properties found in the appellant's room. She took her parents and the police to the 11 appellant's office and then home. There is no doubt that PW1's identification is unquestionable. He relied on Marwa Wangiti Mwita & Another v. Republic [2002] TLR 39 and that of Nebson Tete v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2013 (CAT at Mbeya, unreported). On the issue of contradiction in the prosecution testimony, it was argued that according to the trial court’s proceedings, PW1 named the appellant as soon as it was discovered that she was pregnant. She maintained consistency in her testimony that Appellant raped her. There were no main contradictions in the subject of the case. Regarding the second group, the state attorney argued that this was a rape case, where penetration alone suffices for conviction, negating the necessity for DNA evidence. He insisted on the principle that penetration, however slight, is sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse and that the Doctor’s testimony is only corroborative evidence only. He cited the case of Mwita Charles Mkami V. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2017 (TZCA Tanzlii), and Godi Kasenegala Vs Republic Criminal Appeal no 10 of 2008 [TZCA Tanzlii]. In the third group, he maintained that the trial magistrate had evaluated the evidence from both sides before concluding the appellant was guilty. 12 For the fourth group, he explained that while the charge sheet must provide reasonable clarity regarding dates, it does not need to be exact, as the charges are sufficiently outlined given the nature of the accusations. He added that the offence is alleged to have been committed on various dates between December 2022 and March 2023 in the Mirungu Kibada area within Kigamboni District. Due to these circumstances, the court must consider all the evidence. He relied on the case of Paschal Aplonal v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2016 [TZCA Tanzlii], urging the court to find the charge sheet against the appellant valid and adequately proved. For the final group, the state attorney contended that there was no evidence of mental torture due to the judgment being read in English, as the appellant was able to participate in the proceedings. He concluded by requesting the court to dismiss the appellant's appeal with costs. Rejoinder submissions are essentially a repetition of the appellant's submissions in chief, with few additions, maintaining that the testimony of PW2 was entirely hearsay and could not form part of the conviction against the Appellant. The trial court misconstrued the evidence by claiming that it was corroborated by PW2, when in fact, there was no corroboration whatsoever. He insisted that had the accused committed 13 the alleged rape three times, the victim would have reported the incidents immediately and not after four months of pregnancy. I have taken a close look at the appeal and the entire trial and court record. The 16th ground of appeal raises concerns about the charge being defective. The appellant believes that the charge didn't fully explain the alleged offence and omitted important details regarding when the incident occurred, which is contrary to the law. It's widely accepted that the charge sheet plays a crucial role in criminal trials, as it outlines what the prosecution witnesses will present, while also providing the accused with clarity on the nature and seriousness of the offence, enabling them to prepare a robust defence. Sections 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Gap 20 R.E. 2022 (CPA), supports this principle with clear guidelines that: 132, "Every charge or information shall contain, and shall be sufficient if it contains, a statement of the specific offence or offences with which the accused a person is charged, together with such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the offence charged" This section requires that every charge or information must include a clear statement of the specific offence or offences the accused is facing, along 14 with sufficient details to provide reasonable information about the nature of the offence. The appellant in this case stands charged of rape. The charge sheet was drafted thus: “STATEM ENT OF THE OFFENCE: R ape: contrary to section 130(1)(2)€ and (3) and 131 of the penal Code Cap 16 RE 2022 P AR TI CULARS OF THE OFFENCE AHAM ADI ABDULA AZI Z KI GOM BA, on diverse dates between December 2022 and March 2023, at Mirungu- Kibanda are within Kigamboni District in Dar es Salaam Region, did have carnal knowledge of one…a girl of 16 years old” The particulars of the offence are detailed and precise, clearly outlining the appellant's alleged involvement in the crime of rape on multiple occasions between December 2022 and March 2023. This description provides the appellant with a clear understanding of the specific charges against him, including the timeframe during which the alleged offences are said to have been committed. I thus do not find merit in this ground. 15 There exists another assertion regarding the delivery of the judgment in English, despite the accused being unrepresented, which allegedly contravenes the principles of natural justice. I have conducted a thorough examination of the case records. The judgment in question was rendered in camera on June 4, 2023, with the presence of Shamimu Mruma, the learned State Attorney for the Republic, as well as the accused/the appellant, who was present in person. Though the language used to deliver the judgment was not described in the proceedings, after conviction, the appellant provided a mitigation statement in which he distinctly distanced himself from the offence, claiming that the case was a mere fabrication and denying responsibility for the child born as a result of the alleged crime. This significant detail is recorded on page 15 of the judgment. The contents of the appellant's own mitigation clearly indicate his comprehension of the judgment's details, including the conviction that the court had just pronounced. The evidence substantiates that due process was duly followed, and the appellant was adequately informed of the proceedings against him. The assertion that the judgment was delivered in English, thereby rendering him unaware of the court's decision, is unfounded and directly contradicts the established record. Accordingly, the 17th Ground of appeal lacks merit. 16 The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7,8,9, 10,11,12, and 15 grounds challenge the prosecution's case as not being proved beyond reasonable doubt. As stated above, Ahmadi Abdula Aziz Kigomba was arraigned for rape, C/S Section 130(1)(2)(e) and 131 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16 R.E. 2022. The prosecution alleged that on several occasions between December 2022 and March 2023, in the Mirungu-Kibada area of Kigamboni District, Dar Es Salaam Region, the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim, a sixteen-year-old girl. The accused denied the charge. I agree with the learned State Attorney that to prove this offence, the prosecution was required to prove the victim's age, penetration, and that the accused was responsible : See JOSEPH GERALD @ MDOMVI VS REPUBLIC Criminal Appeal No 680 of 2021 [TZCA 765 TANZLII]. This is because under 130 (2) ( e), a male person commits the offence of rape if he has sexual intercourse with a girl or a woman with or without her consent when she is under eighteen years of age, unless the woman is his wife who is fifteen or more years of age and is not separated from the man. It follows therefore that for the prosecution to prove this category of rape, apart from proving that the appellant carnally knew the victim, has to prove that the victim was under 18 years of age. There is a plethora 17 of authorities in support of the above stance, such as the case of George Claud Kasanda Vs. DPP, Criminal Appeal No 376 of 2017 CAT at Mbeya, Isaya Renatus (supra), Jackson David @ Linus Vs. R, Criminal appeal No. 284 of 2019 (CAT-Unreported) and Rutoyo Richard Vs. R, Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2017. In the case of Isaya Renatus Vs. R, Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2015 (CAT), the Court of Appeal clarified that evidence on proof of age may be provided by the victim, a relative, parent, medical practitioner, or, where available, through the production of a birth certificate. Stressing on that position and who can prove the age of the victim, the Court of Appeal had this to say: ’’We are keenly conscious of the fact that age is of great essence in establishing the offence of statutory rape under section 130(l)(2)(e), the more so, under the provision, it is a requirement that the victim must be under the age of eighteen. That being so, it is most desirable that the evidence as to proof of age be given by the victim , relative, parent, m edical practitioner or; w here available, by the production of a birth certificate.’’ (Emphasis supplied) 18 In this case, PW2, the victim’s mother satisfactorily proved the victim's age. In her evidence in chief, PW2 stated that the victim is her daughter, aged 16, born on the 5th of September 2006. She also tendered the victim's birth certificate, which was admitted as exhibit P1 without objection from the defence. This evidence remained unchallenged even during cross-examination, as no question was asked about this vital piece of evidence. With this solid evidence and applying the principle from the case of Isaya Renatus (supra) to the facts of this matter, this Court is left with no doubt that the victim (PW1) was a girl under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. Therefore, I find the first element proven. The second element is penetration. In her testimony, the victim (PW1) described how she was raped. She explained that in December 2022, the accused seduced her while she was at his office to transfer music to her flash drive. The following day, while teaching the accused's younger sister, he raped her after giving her a drink that made her lose consciousness. When she regained awareness, she found herself on the floor, bleeding, and confronted the accused, who did not respond. The victim did not inform anyone about the incident due to her strict parents. The next day, she encountered the accused again, who forced her to go 19 to his house. He dragged her into his room, undressed her, and raped her, warning her not to tell anyone. On how he was raped PW1 evidence on page 19 of the trial courts proceedings goes thus: “He pulled me, then one man came asked him to leave me , but he told that man that he knew me , he took me by force to their house…then Ahamadi pulled me inside his room and closed the door, Then he forced me to undress my clothes, I refused , he pulled me undressed my clothes by force, then he took his male organ and inserted it into my vagina akanivuta ndani kwake akafunga mlango, akawa ananilazimisha nivue nguo nikakataa, akanivuta akanivua nguo kwa lazima akachukua uume wake akaingiza kwenye uke wangu." I cried but he closed my mouth…” The third incident of rape was disclosed on page 20 where Pw1 said: “… he undressed my clothes by force then he inserted his male organ into my vagina @ akanivua kwa lazima nguo alafu akaingiza uume wake kwenye uke wangu…he told me tayari nishakumwagia maji najua utaniletea mtoto…” In this case, PW1 carries the best evidence when it comes to a sexual offence, as stated in Seleman Makumba vs. R( Supra).In Goodluck 20 Kyando v. R, (2006) T.L.R. 363, every witness is entitled to credence and belief unless there are good and cogent reasons to disbelieve the witness. I will see if there are such reasons later. PW1’s stable and unwavering evidence, was corroborated by that of PW6, a medical doctor establishing that penetration occurred. The appellant‘s arguments that what was examined by PW6 is only pregnancy and not rape is to be a miss construction of the prosecution evidence. Giving his evidence in court PW6 at page 54 was categorially that: ‘’I ex am ined her vagina parts by using m y hands and eyes. She w as seem ed ok ay physically. Her vagina had no bruises, blood, or any discharge. But she had no hym en, there w as penetration. So I physically examined her stomach by touching her stomach by my hands, and I felt her kizazi by using my hands. Then I directed her to do laboratory test to check on vital test and pregnancy. The result come negative on vital test but her urine showed that she was pregnancy. Since it was late, we told them to come on 07/06/2023 and filled a form for ultra sound test, she went for ultra sound test, and the result come that she had singleton (one child) and the pregnancy was of 16 weeks and 5 21 days......I filled PF3 and wrote on what I have observed and gave the said PF3 to them’’.( Bold is mine) This evidence was again not contradicted in any way. When allowed to cross-examine PW6, the appellant had only one question on the age of the pregnancy. He did not question the other detailed evidence provided by PW6, leaving it undisturbed. The absence of a hymen confirmed penetration, and the presence of pregnancy serves as proof of rape, leaving this court without a scintilla of doubt that, indeed, PW1 was raped. The appellant’s defence is nothing short of a blatant fabrication. His strategy hinges on a mere general denial, attempting to dissociate himself from the allegations of rape without providing any credible evidence to support his assertions. Specifically, he claimed not to know the victim; however, this claim quickly fell apart during cross-examination when he acknowledged that his younger sister taught the victim, implying a clear familiarity between the appellant and the victim, contradicting his earlier denials. Furthermore, the inconsistency in the appellant's testimony is underscored by the statements of his own witness, DW3, who is a friend of the victim. DW3 unequivocally confirmed that the appellant was indeed 22 aware of the victim through her, thereby dismantling the appellant’s narrative that he had no connection to her. This contradiction not only undermines the credibility of the appellant but also strengthens the prosecution's case, as it reveals a lack of truthfulness on his part. Given the weight of the evidence presented, particularly from key prosecution witnesses, I find no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. The appellant complained about the contradiction in the prosecution witnesses' testimony, and, in particular, cited the evidence of PW1 and PW6, arguing that such evidence cannot be relied upon. His complaint was specifically on the evidence given in respect to the examination done to the victim by the doctor PW6. I will let the records speak for themselves: The victim on page 23 had this to tell the court: “I went into the doctor’s room, and he told me to sleep on the bed. He touched my stomach and said that I am pregnant. Then he told me to go to the laboratory for test, I went to the laboratory and the results came and showed that I am pregnant. Doctor told me to check for ultra sound, but we were told that ultra sound machine was not working. Doctor filled PF3 and went retuned it to the police station. Then we went back home . on the next day, during morning, we went 23 to the police station and when we arrived there, they told us to go for the utra sound check up and to return back, we went for the utra sound check up and I was told that iam four months pregnant. Then I returned to the police station and I gave my statement…” Testifying on the same point PW6, a doctor who examined the victim on page 54 of the proceedings said: ‘’I examined her vagina parts by using my hands and eyes. She was seemed okay physically. Her vagina had no bruises, blood, or any discharge. But she had no hymen, there was penetration. So I physically examined her stomach by touching her stomach by my hands, and I felt her kizazi by using my hands. Then I directed her to do laboratory test to check on vital test and pregnancy. The result come negative on vital test but her urine showed that she was pregnancy. Since it was late, we told them to come on 07/06/2023 and filled a form for ultra sound test, she went for ultra sound test, and the result come that she had singleton (one child) and the pregnancy was of 16 weeks and 5 days......I filled PF3 and 24 wrote on what I have observed and gave the said PF3 to them’’. I do not find any contradiction between the two witnesses . There is an issue of DNA, where the appellant is suggesting that the offence was to be proved by DNA tests. This is again is a misconception on the party of the appellant. As rightly stated by the State Attorney, appellant is charged of rape, where the only ingredients are as stipulated above, no paternity here was being sought and no evidence was introduced to the records showing that the victim had during trial given birth for the child to be subjected to the DNA test. Iam in this aspect supported by the case of Mwita Charles Mkami V. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2017 (supra ) where the Court of appeal said in rape case "penetration however slight is sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse". Another important element of rape which the prosecution is tasked to prove is whether the accused before the court, the appellant in this case, was responsible. It is apparent from the records that PW1 knew the accused by name, face , and location in both his office and his residence. She was even able to explain to the court how often she had seen him, describing the appellant's room and the properties therein. She was able 25 to take her parents and the police to the accused's office and later to their home. His knowledge of the appellant is also confirmed by the defence witness, DW3, who admitted that the victim is her friend and that he used to go to their home, through which the appellant knew her. The evidence provided by PW1 on the identity of the appellant as a perpetrator was strong and credible, and nothing in the records suggests any miscalculation, misidentification, or any reason why PW1 would lie against the appellant. PW1’s reasons for not disclosing the incidents of rape until June 6, 2023, is both compelling and consistent with the psychological profile of a victim of sexual assault. Her testimony indicates that fear of her strict parents and the appellants’ intimidation was a significant barrier preventing her from coming forward earlier. In this specific case, PW1’s late disclosure does not negate the reality of her experience or absolve the appellant of guilt. The evidence brought forth by PW1, in conjunction with corroborative testimonies and medical findings, creates a consistent narrative that substantiates her claims. In Goodluck Kyando vs Republic, ( Supra) , it was held that every witness is entitled to credence and must be believed, and their testimony accepted, unless there are good and cogent reasons for not believing them. PW1, in her testimony, 26 named the appellant as soon as it was discovered that she was pregnant, and she maintained consistency in her testimony that the Appellant raped her. There were no main contradictions related to the subject of the case. There is no basis upon which to disbelieve PW1’s explanation for the delay in reporting the incidents. I am thus satisfied that all elements of rape were proved to the required standard. The trial court correctly evaluated the evidence before reaching the verdict. The assertion that the defence was not adequately considered in ground 14 is again without merit. A thorough examination of the trial records reveals that the magistrate engaged in a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence presented by both parties before reaching a determination. This process entailed a detailed analysis of the prosecution's evidence, which was evaluated in the context of the statutory burden of proof. The trial magistrate demonstrated a keen engagement with the details of the case, drawing comparisons between the prosecution's and the defence's arguments. Notably, the magistrate expressed a firm conviction regarding the veracity of the prosecution's case, underpinned by the reliability, credibility, and demeanor of the victim. The victim provided testimony that was characterized as consistent and truthful, which played a pivotal role in the magistrate's assessment. 27 Moreover, the defense's response was expressed as a general denial, lacking substantive evidence that could substantially challenge or undermine the prosecution's narrative. In my view, the magistrate's analysis was executed with due diligence, as it was balanced and reflective of adherence to legal standards concerning the evaluation of evidence making the complaint regarding the defence's consideration in ground 14 unfounded. Furthermore, the assertion that the conviction was based on the weaknesses of the defence case is not entirely accurate. According to the records and as stated earlier, the trial court's findings were based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, especially PW1, and not as suggested by the appellant. In summary, the conviction and sentence are firmly grounded in the factual evidence presented during the trial and the applicable law. The appellant’s appeal lacks merit and fails. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in its entirety. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM, this 21st MARCH 2025 28 E.Y. MKWIZU JUDGE 29