A person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence on the basis of speculation. Hard evidence is required in order to sustain a conviction. On the basis of the evidence before the court, it is the word of the complainant (PW2) against that of the 1st Appellant. Whereas the latter conceded that PW2 slept the night in his room, he denied having defiled her. Such an incident calls for corroboration. The proviso to Section 124 of the Evidence Act is to the effect that“Provided that where in a criminal case involving a sexual offence the only evidence is that of the alleged victim of the offence, the court shall receive the evidence of the alleged victim and proceed to convict the accused person if, for reasons to be recorded in the proceedings, the court is satisfied that the alleged victim is telling the truth.” In the instant case, there is no other witness to the alleged defilement expect the victim herself. The trial court could have convicted the 1st Appellant if, for reasons to be recorded, the court was satisfied that the alleged victim was telling the truth. However, that was not done. We have therefore to look for corroboration from the medical evidence. Unfortunately, the medical evidence on record does not help matters. Although the victim’s mother (PW3) stated that she took her daughter to Lianna’s Hospital and Nairobi Women’s Hospital, it is significant that she did not specify the date(s) when she did so. However, Doctor Muhombe (PW5) testified that the complainant alleged to have been raped on 30th December, 2006 at 2pm. She further told the Doctor that she had been lured into a house by the 2 nd Appellant and then a man she knew as Jairo (1 st Appellant) came in and raped her repeatedly the whole night. When the Doctor examined her, she found tears on the hymen at ? 5 7? and 11? o’clock positions. She then continued “I did investigations and no spermatozoa was seen. I tested the urine and no spermatozoa were seen…” Even though the Doctor formed the opinion that the complainant had been raped, she did not give the approximate time when the tears on the hymen had been inflicted. The approximate age of those tears would have assisted in determining whether they were inflicted approximately at the time when the complainant said she had been defiled. In the absence of such evidence, it is not possible to say conclusively and with certainty that the tears were inflicted by the 1st Appellant. The approximate time of the infliction of those tears holds the key as to whether the complainant was defiled at the time when she says she was, but that question was never posed. That is a serious gap in the prosecution case and it creates a doubt which goes to the benefit of the 1st Appellant. Regarding the case against the 2nd Appellant, it is noteworthy that she is charged with child prostitution. Unfortunately the charge against her was defective. The particulars thereof read as follows“Ann Achieng on the 30th day of December, 2006 at Kangemi in Nairobi within Nairobi area, knowingly permitted F. A. a child of 13 years to remain in the house of David Jairo for the purpose of causing the said F. A. to be sexually abused by David Ayuma.” From this charge, there is confusion as to whether the complainant was subjected to the alleged prostitution for the purpose of being sexually abused by David Jairo or David Ayuma. Since the charge speaks of David Ayuma, why was he not charged? In the Circumstances, one need not belabour the point because the charge sheet speaks for itself. It is defective as earlier said.