The accused was convicted of rape. The only evidence for the prosecution was that of complainant, a girl of 13 years. The trial court made no inquiry as to the complainant’s capacity to testify.
Held: (1) Before the complainant, who was a child of tender years, was permitted to testify on oath, the court should have made an inquiry and determined first that she was possessed of sufficient intelligence to justified the reception of her evidence and, second, that she understood the nature of an oath. [Citing s. 152(3), Criminal Procedure Code]. It is a rule of practice that tin a case of rape there should be corroboration of a complainant’s evidence. Conviction quashed.
