offence. He said he learnt of the details of the allegations against him when prosecution witnesses were testifying against him. This offence was committed inthe matrimonial home. PW.2, the complainant told court her harrowing experience when grabbed her, took her to the bedroom and "did bad to part she uses to urinate. She felt pain. She cried. The accused held her mouth to stop the noise. In the process, the mother PW.4 came having sex with complainant. She was overwhelmed, found accused an alarm which was answered by several people. This offence took place during broad day light. The complainant knew the accused well. She pointed at him while he was in the dock. The mother equally knew the accused very well. There was no possibility of any mistaken identity. The accused's denial the offence is a lie. I did not believe him. I am satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused was properly identified as the perpetrator this crime against PW.2. The last ingredient consideration is whether the accused is a parent, guardian or a person in authority over Namataka Jesca. Namataka (PW.2) testified identified the accused as her biological father. court and That at the time he "did bad manners to her," her mother had gone to the banana plantation. When the mother came back, found her father lying on top of her. This piece of evidence was 7