91. The Applicant also cites the case of Tibashekerwa Gaspar and Another v The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2012 (Unreported) where the Court of Appeal noted as follows: … to have not read those statements in Court deprived the parties and the assessors in particular, the opportunity of appreciating the evidence tendered in Court. Given such a situation, it is obvious that the omission too constituted a serious error amounting to miscarriage of justice and constituted a mis-trial.” 92. The Applicant thus submits that the Respondent State’s failure to read out the exhibits to the Applicant prejudiced him. * 93. The Respondent State challenges the Applicant’s allegation. It submits that the Court of Appeal finalised this matter, which the Applicant had raised as his third ground of appeal, as follows: In the circumstance of the instant case however, we rush to agree with Mr. Ngole that since the Republic called PW4 Florence Kayungi, the doctor who conducted deceased’s autopsy, and because the evidence of that witness capitalised on exhibit P1 and he explained in detail the deceased’s cause of death, also that his advocate was given chance to cross-examine her, it cannot be accepted that the appellant was denied opportunity to know the contents of Exhibit P1. So is also the question of the sketch map because PW3 Insp. Angello was called to testify and clarified/explained the contents of the document … Thus, this ground too lacks merit and is dismissed. 94. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant was made aware of the contents of both Exhibit P1 and P2 which were thoroughly discussed during the trial. The Respondent State further notes that the State provided the Applicant a defence counsel, who duly cross-examined prosecution witnesses on the two exhibits, as proven by the record of the proceedings. 24