seen PW2 with someone near the fence. Nothing is ever said again of PW2’s father who had gone in chase of the culprit. Nothing is also said again about PW2’s mother. One would have expected PW2’s mother, in the natural flow of things to be on the spot with PW4. The evidence of PW4 is loaded with a lot of doubts. For example she would see her little female cousin with a man she has never seen before at that dark hour in the evening and pass without much ado? Is this piece of evidence convincing? I think it is not and this I shall hold as a fact. Furthermore, the prosecution did not lead any evidence of PW4 having a torchlight in her possession when she alleged to have first seen PW2 and the accused near the fence. How then was she able to recognize the accused when it was already dark and she did not have the opportunity to closely observe the accused? I think she would not have been in the position to properly recognize the person she saw standing near the fence, and this I shall also hold as a fact. Again, PW4 can remember having seen the accused in the market before. Perhaps, it is important to say that except a person has had a special encounter with some one he is meeting for the first time in a market place; it may not be an easy thing to easily identify this person subsequently. The prosecution did not lead any evidence of close observation to support the assertion that the person PW4 purportedly saw in the market was the accused. I do not think that I believe the evidence of PW4 at all. She is not a credible witness in my view as her entire evidence leaves more questions than answers. I therefore doubt the 10