Shodipo Olanrewaju, a gynaecologist and a witness in an ongoing sexual assault case, said the teenager (names withheld) was admitted to the hospital and tests conducted on her.
“Findings revealed that she had a shaved pubic hair which the accused perpetrator shaved and went away (with),” said Mr. Olanrewaju.
“She also had hyperaemia which is an inflammatory process, there was redness and pains and those were keeping in history of digital penetration and these were contained in the report prepared by the team of doctors at the Centre due to the sensitivity of the case we receive dated 14th October, 2014.”
Digital penetration is the act of using one or more fingers to penetrate the vagina.
Earlier, in her testimony, the teenager, whose specific age was not mentioned at the court, said she was approached by Mr. Ibrahim, who lived in her compound, and told her he saw a vision that he would marry her.
She said the suspect invited her to his house, undressed her and prepared a concoction which he applied on all parts of her body and digitally penetrated her vagina.
“He later asked me to go and warned me not to tell anyone,” she added.
When the teenager’s medical report was presented before Justice S.S. Ogunsanya as an exhibit, counsel to the defendant, Obuagbaka Worer, questioned the authenticity of the document saying the witness was not the maker of the document.
Mr. Worer argued that the report must be certified before it could be tendered.
Responding, Arun Adebayo, the prosecution counsel, said there was nothing wrong with the medical report.
“The document is in its original form and true which my learned friend has a copy served,” Mr. Adebayo said.
“The maker of the document, Olaniyi Morenike, is no longer in the employment of the state government and has relocated and Section 83 of the Evidence Act settles this. We therefore urge the court to discountenance the objection of my learned friend.
In her ruling, Mrs. Ogunsanya said, “I have listened to the arguments of the two counsels and counsel to the prosecution sought to tender a medical report as evidence and counsel to the defendant objected to the evidence as the witness was not the maker of the document and since it’s a public document it should be properly certified.
“I have looked at the document and the document satisfies the Evidence Act, I therefore admit this evidence as Exhibit P1.”
The case was later adjourned to April 11, 2017, for continuation of trial.
Source: Premium Times
0 comments:
Post a Comment