(e) by the content of exhibit C, means that the incident 18 of alleged defilement could only have happened on the 5th of September, 2014, not 6th of September, 2014; and this contradiction puts a big lie to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and goes to the root of the charge that no defilement occurred on the 6th of February, 2014 or occurred on any other date; (f) the evidence adduced by PW1, PW2 and PW3 was not sufficiently credible to confirm that it was the appellant that defiled PW1. After analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned counsel contended that the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. While disagreeing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent agreed with the view of the trial Court that requirement of illiterate jurat applies to only contractual documents. Learned counsel for the respondent contended, among other things, that: (1) the statement in exhibit C that there was also positive history of fecail.1 day after the incident means one after the incident is the 7th day of September, 2014 and not the 19 5th day of September, 2014 as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant; (2) under Section 90(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, the Court has discretion to admit as evidence a relevant document even where the maker is available but not called as witness; (3) the offence was prove beyond reasonable by the prosecution.