DW. l further testified that he was ordered to go into the house for a search. He was asked- for clothes and told them he had not changed clothes since morning. Inside the house, were 3 coat~: and a trousers. That was the defence case. In her submission Ms. Alpha Ogwang the learned State Attorney outlined the ingredients to be proved by prosecution as required by the law. She emphatically said the accused is the culprit she referred to and reiterated the eviJence by PW.2 the complainant. That the said evidence was corroborated by that of PvV. l Dr. Rubw1za who made Exh.P.I. Fmther the lean1ed State Attorney submitted that the victim was in a distressed condition shortly after the attack which ;s corroboration in sexual offences. That the evidence of PW.3 corroborated the evidence of PW.2. According to the State Attorney the assembled evidence is sufficient proof beyond doubt that the victim had carnal knowledge without her consent. Alternatively if consent was procured then it was by threats. Regarding participation of the accused, the State contends that since the offence took place during day, the victim saw her attacker. They struggled for about 20 minutes at 7:00a.m. Later panga and threatened to cut was going home the accused ·v~d her with a if she did not stop crying and makni'g noise. That the evidence of a single identifying witness ought to be corroborated but although this is the general principle, if corroboration is missing lhen court has to warn itself of the dangers of acting on uncorroborated evidence. In that case court can convict if it finds the complainant truthful. 5