accused and charged him with the offence of defilement. Hence, the trial that is the subject of this judgement. The accused gave evidence on oath and denied that he committed the alleged offence. He pointed out that the indictment was a frame up that arose from a grudge Nakyejwe had against him two weeks before the alleged offence. At that time, one of Nakyejwe’s customers abandoned her. Instead, he bought sweet potatoes worth shs. 5,000: from the accused. Nakyejwe got angry. She, therefore, warned the accused that she would shortly destroy his business, Two weeks later; the police arrested the accused on a charge of defilement, which he had no knowledge of. Before Court endeavours to find out whether or not the prosecution proved its case against the accused it will outline a few principles, which are relevant in disposing of this case. The first principle is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case against the accused and that burden does not shift upon the accused except in very few circumstances where statutory law specifically provides so. (See Woolmington v DPP (1935) AC 462; and Bigirwa Edward v Uganda Cr. Appeal No.27 of 1992.) The second principle is that the standard of proof required in criminal cases is ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt ‘. Although that is a very high standard of proof it does not mean that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, instead, it means that the prosecution case must be strong; and it must reflect a high degree of probability that the accused committed the offence in question. In Miller Minister of Pension (1947) 2 All ER 372 at pages 373-374, the judge pointed out that where the evidence against a man is so strong as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with such a remark, “Of course it is possible but not in the least probable” then the prosecution has proved Its case. Thirdly, in cases of this nature, that is to say, where the victim alleges that the accused committed a sexual offence against her, before a court acts upon the victim’s evidence it must warn itself that it is dangerous to act on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim. However, where a court does not find the required corroboration it must satisfy itself that the victim was a truthful witness if it is to base a conviction on her evidence,