• J13 evidence as to both the commission of the offence as well as identity of the offender. 2. The learned trial court erred both in law and in fact when it discounted the evidence of the defence which was reasonably possible. The appellant's heads of argument and respondent's submissions were filed into court. Both Counsel entirely relied on the said arguments and submissions. In support of ground one, Mr. Humphrey Mweemba, Principal Legal Aid Counsel submitted that the record indicates that the evidence of incest against the Appellant came from PW2, PW3 and PW4 and was based on the reports from PWl. He drew this Court's attention to the fact that there was no independent evidence to corroborate PWl's evidence. He submitted that even PWl's grandmother who is the appellant's aunt was not called to corroborate her story. He also took up issue with the fact that the offence allegedly occurred in July, 2015 but that the prosecutrix was only medically examined in September, 2015. He submitted that he could not personally see the medical report on record and that he could not comment on the doctor's findings. In support of his argument, Mr. Mweemba relied on the Supreme Court's guidance in the case of EMMANUEL PHIRI v THE PEOPLE 1 where it held inter alia that: