7 I have looked at the evidence on record, and I cannot conjecture how PW1 would have been able to lead the police to the accused person’s residence if she had never visited there before. PW1 has an unmistaken identity of the accused. There is also unchallenged evidence that PW1 was found at the Fajikunda neighborhood. When these facts are put together they form a perfect jigsaw pointing unshakenly to one conclusion; that the person who kidnapped PW1 is the accused and nobody else. The allegation by the defense that the accused had initially made reference to a taxi driver as the person who took her away appears to me to be a well thought out plan designed to throw dust into the eyes of the Court thus preventing it from doing justice in this matter. DW2 who said she over head PW3 saying that the accused was taken away by a taxi driver would admit under cross examination that she “will wish the Court to show mercy on the accused if found liable” and that she will do anything to safe her husband from trouble. This lends support to the fact that DW2 was also deliberate in her attempt to mislead this court. From the above, I am satisfied that the elements of the offence under Count I have been successfully established by the prosecution and this I shall further hold as a fact. Turning now to Count II, the prosecutrix has testified in support of this Count that the accused had unlawful carnal knowledge of her and without her consent. I must point out straight away that the proviso to Section 185 (2) of the Evidence Act is not relevant to this trial because