4 With regards to the issue of sexual intercourse, there are two pieces of extraneous evidence which seeks to corroborate the allegation of rape. First is the alleged admission which the accused made to one Abdoulie Sowe. It has been alleged that during a confrontation meeting held at the Alkalo’s residence a day after the alleged rape, the accused is said to have stepped aside with Abdoulie Sowe where he admitted and confessed to him that he was under a spell when he committed the offence. Second is the medicolegal certificate and treatment card in evidence as exhibits “A” and “A1”. These pieces of evidence now fall to be evaluated and scrutinized by the court. The admission or confession of an accused person to a crime is the best evidence of corroboration against him. From the evidence adduced it seems that Abdoulie Sowe is a material witness whose evidence could have settled the crucial issue of whether the accused admitted or confessed to the offence or not. However, for some strange and unexplained reasons the prosecution did not find it necessary to call this very important witness. The duty of the prosecution to call all material witnesses whose evidence would settle a vital point in the trial is long established (MBALLOW V. THE STATE (1960-1993) GLR 437), and the failure of the prosecution to call such a witness means that I cannot reach the conclusion whether the accused ever admitted and or confessed to the crime. In cases where there was no eye witness account of the alleged sexual offence, as in this case, the law allows the Court to rely on circumstantial evidence to resolve the issue of corroboration. Such evidence could include