arrested the accused and in the course of investigations two statements were recorded from him by PW2. These statements are in evidence as exhibits “A-A1”. Suffice to say that the statement of the prosecutrix (PW1) in exhibit DE1 presents a different picture from her testimony before the court. In exhibit DE1 PW1 stated that she went to the house with two of her friends namely Fadia Ceesay and Mariama Touray. When they arrived at the house they met one Pap Ceesay who served them with drinks. She drank hers but her friends did not drink theirs. She fell asleep and when she woke up she did not see anybody but discovered that she was bleeding from her private part. She went home and was advised to drink the blue washing powder by her friend. On his part the accused relied on his statement to the police but insisted that although the prosecutrix was his girl friend, he had no sexual intercourse with her on that day. In his statements to the police the accused denied the allegations but admitted that he and the prosecutrix visited the house of one Pap Ceesay on the day in question. At the close of the hearing on the 18 of April 2012, both sides waived their right to address me. In proceeding to judgment, it is incumbent on me to first state the position of the law on rape. In a charge of rape, the prosecution must prove the following three elements: 1. That there was carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix; 2. That the act was that of the accused person; and 3