IN LAW Regarding the crimes of rape held against the accused MOLOSSA MOHAMED, in the terms of article 170 of the Penal Code Book II ““commits rape, whether resorting to violence or grave threat or by restraint, directly or through a third party, whether by surprise, psychological pressure, whether under a coercive environment, whether abusing a person that due to illness, altered state of mind or by any other accidental cause has lost her senses or is deprived of them by any device”; it follows from this legal provision that the crime of rape requires the material element, that is the sexual conjunction, and the moral or intentional element, that is the lack of consent. In the present case, being the matter of rape through the alteration fo mental faculties, the Prosecution holds that the accused drugged the victim before imposing upon her the sexual penetration for the first time. Such as follows from the investigation; in his grounds for appeal, the accused claims having had consenting sexual intercourse with the victim in that they lived together and that during the investigation of the present case in the first instance as well as in the appeal, the Prosecution has not brought forth nor offered any evidence of the use of narcotic substances in the plaintiff's blood; Additionally, he continues, the Prosecution confirms the plaintiff's allegations without proof; To support his argument, the accused invokes the doctrine of Prof. UKULIA BOLONGO in his work Droit Penal spécial Zairois, 12, p.335, according to which “in every case of rape we recommend the Judge not to accept, without further evidence, the complaints or statements of a woman or girl who might try to excuse their faulst by making false accusations”. He also invokes the common law according to which this Court disregarded the rape offense towards a consenting woman that had only filed a complaint after the poor remuneration of the sexual services rendered by the alleged victim to the accused (Kin, 5 May 1972, RJZ, 1973, 9.175); Thus, to the accused, the plaintiff NKUSU alleges rape with resort to drugs to excuse her behavior and save her marriage since her husband just discovered the conjugal relation she maintained with the accused. The 1st Judge, he concludes, basing his decision only on the plaintiff's allegations, misinterpreted the law and the Court should consequently declare the accusation of rape with resort to drugs not established by lack of evidence; Examining the constitutive elements of this offense, it follows from the investigation that after their meeting at Hasson et Frères de Kintambo, the accused consummated sexual intercourse with the plaintiff NKUSU, after serving her a drink, but however, he extracts his innocence fro the claim that everything was done with the consent of the plaintiff and even asks what kind of drug he allegedly administered. According to the statements made by the witness Nadège, not countered by any serious elements on record, the accused being responsible to present evidence to the contrary, reveal that the accused holds images of the plaintiff and of everything they have done and that he threatened to post them on Facebook and by Bluetooth to her husband, images thus taken when she was not aware; Also, the investigation revealed that in asking her sister, the witness GETU, to go talk to the accused's mother in order to make him stop, the plaintiff did not act in order to cover up her extramarital affair with the accused; Thus, despite the denial of the facts by the accused, the Court is convinced that the accused drugged the victim before imposing sexual intercourse on her in the above mentioned date and circumstances, and that the 1st Judge correctly interpreted the law in this regard. In fact, it is standard that the words “by any device” used by