The third issue is whether there were semen or blood stains on exhibits CC1 traceable to the prosecutrix and or the accused. Where an accused person has denied the allegation of rape, the evidence that the Court must look for, is for instance semen or blood stains on the clothes of the prosecutrix or the clothes of the accused person on the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed (POSU v. THE STATE (2011) LPELR-SC. 134/2010). The evidence adduced by the prosecution is that, when PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 traced the blood to the door of the house they immediately formed the opinion that the rape was committed inside the room and not outside. Exhibits C-C1 is a bed sheet and a red inner pant said to belong to the accused that were recovered from the crime scene. Although I could not confirm the presence of any semen or blood stains when I examined exhibits C-C1; there was also no forensic examination of these exhibits to confirm the presence of any semen traceable to the accused and or blood stain traceable to the prosecutrix. As such there are doubts whether there were any semen or blood stains on exhibits C-C1. These doubts must be resolved in favour of the accused and that is the law (QUEEN v. OBIASA (1962) Supra). In addition, all the witnesses who testified for the prosecution said they never opened the door to the room where the alleged rape took place. It is therefore doubtful how exhibits C and C1 believed to have been retrieved from the crime scene were obtained when all those who testified said they did not open the room into the house. Exhibits C-C1 are therefore of doubtful origin and this I shall hold as a fact. It is for these reasons that I 7