Vila Times

A man acquitted on two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse

Vila Times’s Mobile Application

A man who was accused of unlawful sexual intercourse with a teenage girl has been acquitted by the Supreme Court.
David Luan was charged with two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse, contrary to section 97(2) of the Penal Code Act [CAP 135].
David Luan, on or about the month of February 2018, at Black Sands area, had sexual intercourse with a girl, by penetrating here vagina with penis at that time the girl was 13 or 14 years old. Again, on or about the month of March 2018 in a bush area, the man had sexual intercourse with the same girl.
Sometimes in February 2018, the girl was at her home at Black Sands area. The defendant came to the complainant’s house. She was with her little brothers and sisters. Her mother was selling food at 20 vatu Market section. The defendant came to her and asked to go out with her. The complainant refused. The defendant insisted. She followed the defendant into an empty house where he asked her to remove her clothes but she refused. So the defendant removed her clothes and had sexual intercourse with her.
On the other occasion, the man saw the girl at Esah Corporation where he was working. The girl was a student at Tebakor School. The walked together back to Black Sands through Manples area. When they arrived at a bushy area, the man asked her for sex but she refused. The man insisted and she followed him in the bush area where he had sexual intercourse with her.
The defendant pleaded not guilty to both counts and a trial was required.
The trial begun on 19 November 2019. The prosecution had to prove each and all essential elements of the two offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
With the two witnesses, the complainant (girl) and the investigating police officer, the Prosecution has not convinced the Court as it had no evidence.
Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek accordingly acquitted the defendant on both counts as the Prosecution failed to prove both counts on beyond reasonable doubt against the defendant.

Add comment

error: Content is protected!