Similarly, on the issue of production of P3 Form, the appellant recorded that he had no objection for the p3 form to be produced by PW6.
The charge sheet was not defective and there is no witness by the name F who was to be called.
The ground of Appeal that Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not complied what is misplaced.
Page 17 of the proceedings of the trial court indicate that Section 200 was explained to the appellant who opted to proceed with the case from where it had reached.
F was with PW2 and PW3 and she ran away when the appellant shouted that there were thieves at his place.
The trial court held that PW1 was a minor and her genitalia was penetrated by the appellant. The evidence on record shows that indeed PW1 was 14 years old.
It should not be lost that the accused has a right to remain silent and not testify under Article 50 (1) of the Constitution.
What would happen if the accused opts to exercise such a right: The prosecution is expected to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
She had only gone to the appellant's house to have sex and go back home only for her brothers to interfere. It is true that under the Sexual Offences Act, a child below 18 years old cannot give consent to sexual intercourse.
She stayed there for three days and they used to have sex. It is her evidence that she had known the appellant for about three years as he does not live very far from their home.