v. Alleged poor assessment of evidence 73. The Applicant alleges that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was contrary to Rule 66(1) of its Rules due to the court's failure to evaluate the evidence of PW1 based and PW2 to reach a just decision. on prosecution witnesses’ states that the investigating He states that the decision was uncorroborated officer was evidence. never summoned He further to testify in the course of the trial; the PF3 was not listed as part of the evidence during the preliminary hearing or on the charge sheet, and the police officer and doctor who were the authors of the documents to be relied on as evidence were never called as witnesses. 74. The Applicant further submits that the burden of proof was shifted to the defence contrary to Section 110(2) of the Evidence Act. He states that there was insufficient evidence to connect the Applicant with the commission of the offence of rape because PW3 who testified before the District Court bore grudges with the Applicant. The Applicant claims that the District Court and Appellate Courts erred in law and in fact when they discarded the Applicant's unshaken defence and believed the prosecution’s view. 75.The Respondent State rebuts the Applicant's claims and submits that the Court of Appeal examined all the Applicant's claims except those which had not previously been raised before the lower courts and were therefore, disregarded. eK 76.The Court notes that the Applicant did not specify the provision of the Charter or any other relevant human rights instrument violated as a result of this allegation. Nevertheless, it will examine the matter under Article 7(1) of the Charter, which stipulates that “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard”. 20