medical report indicates that PW1 was taken to hospital on 16th and not 17th as submitted by the Appellant. In analyzing the evidence before me I want to firstly comment on the issue of identification of the parties. PW4 testified that she met the appellant just by the door of the bathroom and the appellant was trying to get out of the bathroom. She has known the appellant as her tenant for over one year and she spoke to him on the night in question. She therefore had no doubt as to the person she talked to. Her evidence was corroborated by PW1 who said that she was with the appellant who was about to have sex with her but for the interruption from PW4. After the matter was reported to the complainant’s father, he (PW2) called for the appellant and asked him about the matter, but instead of denying the allegation the appellant asked who had told PW2 about that matter. PW2 informed him that PW4 had informed him and PW4 asked the appellant to leave him and that the issue would be dealt with the following day. In this I find that the appellant was adequately identified firstly by PW4 whose evidence was corroborated by PW1 as to who was with her in the bathroom. The appellant stated in his evidence that PW2 was jealousy of his financial achievements and that is why these charges were drummed up against him. I find it difficult to accept the appellant’s submission on this because if anything he should have maybe alleged that it was PW4 who was jealous about his position because she is the one who first found out what was happening and confronted him then reported the matter to PW2. Incidentally, I found on record that, the appellant did not dispute PW4’s evidence about him being found by the bathroom 9