will not attach any weight to exhibits C-C1. In the circumstance, I cannot therefore rely on these exhibits to connect the accused to the offence under charge. Furthermore, the accused persistently denied the allegations against him. Apart from informing the Court that he is not the occupant of the room where the alleged rape took place, the accused also testified of a scheme by PW4 to get him into trouble. The evidence of a design to frame him up by Pierre Mendy PW4 made some sense in light of the evidence on record. For example; while PW1, PW2 and PW3 testified that the prosecutrix was given a clean bath by her mother before being taken to trace the blood drops; Pierre Mendy who joined them on the way still talked of seeing the prosecutrix with blood stains all over her body. It makes him look in the face of the Court as a naked liar whose evidence could not be believed at all. And I do not believe his evidence at all. Therefore, while it seems very clear that the little CECILIA JARJUE was seriously ravished, and that there were strong suspicions that the accused could have been the culprit; there was no concrete evidence linking up the accused with the crime. It must be emphasized here that while reasonable suspicion is a sine qua non for criminal investigations and prosecutions, it can never found the basis for any conviction, no matter how strong the suspicion may be (IKO v. THE STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732), 221). From the foregoing, I find that prosecution failed to link offence committed to the accused with the certainty required by law. As such the prosecution failed to prove the last element of the offence. 8