Introduction. In the recent landmark case of Kayinamura vs Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 0124 of 2022) (https://ulii.org/akn/ug/judgment/ugca/2024/96/eng@2024-04-26 ), the Court of Appeal, presided over by a coram of three justices - Muzamiru Mutangula Kibendi, Gashirabake, and Kihika (JA) - on April 26, 2024, shed light on the crucial issue of contradictions and inconsistencies in criminal evidence.
The ruling highlighted the importance of rigorous investigation and evidence handling, as even seemingly minor discrepancies can have far-reaching implications for the integrity of a case.
As the court astutely observed, contradictions in witness evidence can be fatal to a conviction only if they relate to material facts, are substantial, and touch on the very substance of the case. Trivial or minor inconsistencies, on the other hand, do not necessarily undermine a witness's credibility or vitiate a conviction.
This case brief examines the legal test for contradictions and inconsistencies in criminal evidence, exploring the intricacies of this critical aspect of criminal justice through the lens of the Court of Appeal's decision in Kayinamura vs Uganda.
Brief facts:
On August 28, 2019, S.K. (this being a minor names were withheld), while alone in Mukingo village, Chiche parish, Kisoro District, alleged that the Appellant forcefully had sexual intercourse with her, threatening to kill her if she told anyone about the incident. After the incident, the victim boarded a bus to Kampala, as she was due to report to school (Pioneer Peace High School). Even at this stage, she had not disclosed the occurrence of the incident to anyone.
On June 1, 2019, the victim noticed pus coming out of her private parts, which prompted her to request the head teacher to call her father. The previous day, she had felt pain in her lower abdomen, which she mistook for a symptom of her menstruation. The matron convinced her to reveal the cause of her unhappiness, and she told her that her grandfather (the Appellant) had raped her.
The matron informed the head teacher, and they decided to take the child to the hospital; however, the hospital asked them to report to the police station before undertaking treatment. The victim, accompanied by the head teacher, nurse, and her father, went to Kakonge police station. While at the police station, the aforementioned individuals made statements. Key Issues
The learned trial judge erred in law and fact when he convicted the Appellant based on evidence full of contradictions, gaps and discrepancies to reach the wrong conclusion that a sexual act was committed on the victim.
The learned trial judge erred in law and fact when he held that the Appellant was a person in authority over the person against whom the offence was committed which holding occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
That the learned trial judge erred in law and fact when he failed to evaluate evidence on record and relied on irrelevant assumptions and considerations to place the Appellant at the scene of crime thus coming to the wrong conclusion that the Appellant committed the crime.
That the learned trial judge erred in law and fact when he had there was no grudge between the Appellant and the victim’s father thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
That the learned trial judge erred in law and fact when he convicted and sentenced the Appellant to 20 years’ imprisonment.
Parties’ Arguments:
The Appellant prayed that in the event that the conviction is upheld, the sentence is set aside considering the Appellant’s mitigating factors of being elderly, with a family to care for, not enjoying good health, a lenient sentence in line with the principle of uniformity and consistency be considered.
The Respondent invited the court not to interfere with the discretion of the learned trial judge as no illegality was occasioned and all material facts were duly considered in imposing the sentence. Courts' decision:
The court held that they did exercise adequate caution in relying on the evidence of single witness. And the evidence availed by the prosecution did not place the appellant at the scene of crime and court relied on the appellant’s strong alibi that he was at his shop far from the scene of crime which evidence was collaborated by his wife.
Court of Appeal’s Holding on the Test For Contradictions and Inconsistencies:
The Court of Appeal in reviewing the facts before it observed that PWI testified that she was sexually assaulted at 9 am and then jumped on a boda boda to the bus park, bypassing a police station, and traveled to Kampala while crying. However, it is unlikely that no one noticed her distress or asked what was wrong during this time.
The boda boda rider and bus conductor would have likely noticed her crying and asked about the cause. Additionally, it is suspicious that she entered an empty bus and sat there for several hours without anyone noticing her isolation or asking what was wrong.
PWI claimed she thought the pain in her lower abdomen was due to her monthly periods and only reported the incident when she saw pus coming from her private parts. However, she did not tell her mother or father about the incident, even when she reached Kampala, far away from her grandfather who she feared.
Despite being in a safe environment, PWI only confided in the school matron later, who then informed the nurse and headmaster. When her father was finally informed, he was upset that she had not told him earlier. PWI's explanation was that if she had told her father, he would have confronted her grandfather, who would have then killed her, despite being in a different location.
This explanation is unlikely, as PWI was already in a safe location and her father would not have been able to confront her grandfather immediately. Additionally, at 16 years old, she would have known she was safe enough to confide in her father about the incident.
PWI's testimony has several inconsistencies and lacks credibility. She failed to disclose the incident to her parents or authorities despite being in a safe environment, and her explanations for not doing so are unconvincing.
The trial judge should have disregarded PWI's testimony due to its untruthful nature. The inconsistencies and lack of disclosure despite being in a safe environment suggest that her testimony was not credible, and it should not have been relied upon in the trial.
Court's Reasoning The court referenced the decision of Adamu JA, Ngolika JA, Orji-Abadua JA, and Abiru JA in the in the Nigerian case of David Ojeabuo v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2014) LPELR-22555(CA), where it was stated that
"Now, contradiction means a lack of agreement between two related facts. The evidence contradicts another piece of evidence when it says the opposite of what the other piece of evidence has stated, and not where there are mere discrepancies in details between them. Two pieces of evidence contradict one another when they are inconsistent on material facts, while a discrepancy occurs where a piece of evidence stops short of or contains a little more than what the other piece of evidence says or contains." (Emphasis mine).
The court further added that,
For contradictions in the evidence of a witness to be fatal, they must relate to material facts and must be substantial, dealing with the real substance of the case. Minor or trivial contradictions do not affect the credibility of a witness and cannot vitiate a conviction. As seen in the of Obwolatum Francis vs Uganda, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2015. What is the Test For Contradictions? The learned Justices observed that,
In applying the above test, the trial Judge should have read the evidence tendered holistically, including the defense evidence. It is indeed not every trifling inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witness that is fatal to its case, leading to the rejection of evidence.
They further observed that when such inconsistencies or contradictions are substantial and fundamental to the main issues in question before the court, and therefore necessarily create some doubt in the mind of the trial court, an accused is entitled to benefit from it as seen in the case of Twehangane Alfred vs Uganda, Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2001, the Court stated that...
With regard to contradictions in the prosecution's case, the law, as set out in numerous authorities, is that grave contradictions, unless satisfactorily explained, will usually, but not necessarily, lead to the evidence of a witness being rejected. The court will ignore minor contradictions unless it thinks that they point to deliberate untruthfulness or if they do not affect the main substance of the prosecution's case.
In this case, PW2's evidence (examining the victim 42 days after the incident) contradicts PW6's evidence (examining the victim 3 days after the incident). PW6 found fresh tears and no infection, while PWI reported stomach pains, blood discharge, and pus just days before. This contradiction raised questions about the prosecution's case. That, these inconsistencies or contradictions were substantial and fundamental to
the main issues in question before the court and therefore the Appellant must
be entitled to benefit from them Conclusively
The court based its ruling on the case of Bogere and Anor Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No.1 of 1997 where court held that
“… where the prosecution adduces evidence showing that the accused was at the scene of crime , the defence not only denies it but also adduces that he was elsewhere at the material time it is incumbent on the court to evaluate both versions judicially and give reasons why one and not the other version was accepted.”
This led the court to grant orders such as ; appellants’ appeal being allowed, Appellants’ conviction on the count of aggravated defilement and sentence being quashed and the appellant being required to be released unless he has been held on other lawful grounds .
The court did not give much credit to the adduced evidence by the respondents in connection the appellant being at the scene of crime. Prepared by Nagasha Katie A Lawyer & Researcher (+256 779 100487)
.jpg)
Commentaires