A man cleared of violently raping his minor sister 12 years ago had his acquittal confirmed on appeal in proceedings riddled with contradictory evidence which undermined the prosecution’s case.

The now 31-year old man had faced accusations of violently raping and defiling the 12-year old girl, unlawfully holding her against her will as well inciting or facilitating the defilement of his two sisters - then 12 and 17. The alleged offences dated back to 2006.

The accused had been acquitted of all charges by a Magistrates’ Court in 2013, prompting an appeal by the Attorney General who argued that the first court had wrongly assessed the facts when it had chosen not to give due weight to the minor’s testimony owing to inconsistencies therein.

The court of appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, acknowledged that such cases of defilement of minors normally presented a scenario where both parties, namely the minor and the alleged aggressor, gave conflicting versions.

“One says white, the other says black, so that the credibility and reliability of witnesses play a role in resolving the issue,” the Court observed, adding that other witnesses, including medical and psychiatric experts, were also to be considered.

The case had been characterised by conflicting versions, including by the alleged victim, so much so that what had started off as a case of violent rape had ended up in allegations of patting, it said.

The court observed that in fact, both sisters had later admitted to a social worker and their mother that they had somewhat exaggerated their account, making up the details after watching a similar report on the news.

Another brother had also changed his version when testifying in open court, later denying that he was present in the bedroom where the abuse allegedly took place.

Gynaecological tests had concluded that there had been no sexual abuse and no penetration of the minor, the court noted.

Besides, a child therapist had reported that the alleged victim had only turned up for three of the allocated sessions, refusing to give any information.

As for the accusation of defilement, the court observed that it had been the minor herself who had intruded upon the accused while he had been watching a pornographic DVD and had stayed on to watch.

The court also noted that the accused had protested his innocence all the way.

Faced with such contradictory evidence, when not even the court experts could conclude whether the minor had indeed been sexually abused or not, the court confirmed the judgment of the first court, clearing the man of all accusations.

Lawyer Mark Busuttil was defence counsel.