d) The appellate courts based their decisions on the findings of the lower courts, which, in his view, violates his right to have his sentence reviewed. iii. | That the decision of the Court of Appeal was contrary to Rule 66(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules due to the following: a. “the court failed to evaluate the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to reach a just decision...”; the decision was based on uncorroborated evidence by the prosecution witnesses; throughout the trial, there was no investigator of the case and the PF 3 form’ was not listed during the preliminary hearing or in the charge sheet nor were the authors of the documents (police officer and doctor) called as witnesses; the burden of proof was shifted to the defence contrary to Section 110(2) of the Evidence Act 1967 (Cap. 6 R.E. 2002); there was insufficient evidence to connect the Applicant with the offence of rape because of the quarrel with PW3 who testified before the trial court that she bore grudges with the Applicant; the “trial Court and Appellate Court erred in law and fact when they discarded the Applicant's unshaken defence and believed the prosecution’s theory.” lll. SUMMARY 7. OF THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT The Application was filed at the Registry on 23 November 2015 and was served on the Respondent State on 25 January 2016. The Applicant filed an amended Application on 28 January 2016, which was Respondent State on 15 February 2016. 1 Police Form (PF) 3 is a form by which the Police request for Medical Examination. 4 served on the