MICHAEL &Another v. R. Crim. App. 254 & 255-M-70

 MICHAEL &Another v. R. Crim. App. 254 & 255-M-70

The appellants were jointly charged and convicted of rape c/s 130 and 131 of the Penal Code

            Held: (1) “The issue is whether the sworn evidence of this girl [a child six years of age] could, in law, corroborate the evidence of the complainant ………………. The Court of Appeal, in the case of OLOO s/o GAI v. R. (1960) E. A. p. 86 at p. 90-91`, after quoting the case of KIBANCENY ARAP KOLIL v. R. (1959) E. A. P. 92 held that ‘even where the evidence of the child of tender years is sworn (or, affirmed) then, although there is no necessity for its corroboration as a matter of law, a court ought not to convict upon it, if uncorroborated, without warning itself and the assessor (if any of the danger of so doing’. It does appear therefore that there is a need, in practice, of corroboration of evidence of a child of tender age before it can be acted upon. In this case the evidence [of the child] needed corroboration, and therefore it could not corroborate the evidence of the complainant.” (2) “I think in this case there was more than the distressed condition of the complainant to corroborate here evidence. She went running towards [three prosecution witnesses] and she pointed out the area near the ant hill as the place where her ravishers were. These people went there and they saw the two appellants there although they started to run away. They the two appellants there although arms, legs and clothes were covered with dust similar to the dust found on the body of the complainant. This evidence sufficiently corroborates the story given by the complainant.” (3) Appeals dismissed.