Under cross examination he said he did not take PW2 into the compound he ran into. He did not take anybody to any house. He does not know why the crowd was shouting and running against him. The defense elected to close its case at this point and both counsels waived their right to address this Court thus paving the way for this judgment. Section 124 of the Criminal Code reads “A person who, with the intent to marry or carnally know a woman of any age, or to cause her to be married or carnally known by any other person, takes her away , or detains her, against her will, commits a felony …” I have carefully looked at the wordings of Section 124 of Criminal Code and it appears to me that for the prosecution to succeed to ground a conviction for the offence of abduction, the following essential elements must be established: (a) that a girl/woman was forcefully taken away or detained by the accused and (b) the accused did so with the intention of him-self or someone else, to carnally know or marry her. While (a) constitutes the actus reus, (b) constitutes the mens rea of the offence under charge. It is settled law that the prosecution can establish these elements by direct or circumstantial evidence, but in either case, it must be beyond reasonable doubts. I shall begin this part of the judgment by first setting out the issues that are not in contention. First, it is not disputed that PW2 was taken away by a man with a bicycle. It is also not disputed that PW2 was later met on the road by PW4. It is further not in dispute that the accused was later 7