Casmiri John and another v. R., Crim. App. 119-A-69, 1/11/69, Platt J.

 

Casmiri John and another v. R., Crim. App. 119-A-69, 1/11/69, Platt J.

The appellants Casmiri John and Kilafumbi Mzee were convicted of rape on the first court and robbery with violence on the second. The complainant Sofia was walking home when she met the two appellants, who are men of her village. The appellant caught her, dragged her into the coffee shamba, and threw her down. She was held by the throat to prevent her from raising the alarm. Her dress and under wear was torn and Shs. 54/- stolen from her pocket. The appellant Kilafumbii had sexual inter course with her first and then the appellant Casmiri. As a result of the struggle, Sofia sustained an injury to her leg which prevented her from walking. She raised an alarm and the appellants ran off. Her husband however responded and came to her help. He found her half-naked, her gown torn and hanging by her shoulder; and her underwear was torn. He heard people running away. Sofia reported at once that these appellants had raped her and stolen her money. The witness Valerian Shabani also heard the report. The next day,

 Sofia was taken to Hospital. The medical certificate reveals that Sofia had a fracture dislocation of the fibia and multiple bruises on the frontal aspect of the neck, but no sperm was discovered in Sofia and she did not apparently suffer any wounds around her genitalia.

            Held: The question was whether there was sufficient corroboration. “The Republic felt that is was arguable in the absence of clear medical evidence, that the destruction of Sofia’s clothing and her injuries were attributable as much to the robbery as to the alleged rape. It might depend on where Sofia had kept her money. It was, she said, in her pocket. If that pocket was in her underwear, then that might account for the state or her torn underclothing, and the manner in which she was found sitting. If it was in her gown on the outside, then there would seem to have been no cause for her under wear to have been torn, and that would afford some corroboration that a further offence had been committed. It is not in evidence from where the money was taken. I agree that the evidence was such that it is difficult to be sure, whether Sofia really was raped or badly injured when being robbed. Although it may well be that she is right that both offences were perpetrated it is not even clear when or how her leg was fractured. It is not said that it was due to the rape alone. As there seems some doubt, I shall allow the appeals and quash the appellants’ convictions and sentences on the first count. Their convictions on the second count however are affirmed.”