JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
At the hearing of this appeal on 29th October 2015, the State through Mr. Monda, learned Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions readily conceded the appeal on three grounds. First, that no cogent evidence on the age of the complainant was led at the trial because the only evidence was a bare statement by the complainant during voire dire examination that she was 12 years old and that the age indicated in the P3 Form was a mere estimate by the police officer who prepared the P3 Form. Secondly, he submitted, there was evidence that the complainant had bathed before she went to hospital for examination and, as a result vital evidence was lost. For that reason the doctor who examined the complainant was unable to determine whether or not she had been defiled. The P3 Form tendered in evidence was silent regarding the doctor’s opinion as to whether the complainant had been defiled or not. In Mr. Monda’s view, the evidence as presented before the trial court and the f…