After carefully considering all the evidence in respect of this ingredient, Court believes that Sarah told the truth in this area of her testimony. That aside, Nakyejwe’s evidence to the effect that she examined Sarah soon after the offence in question was committed and found a whitish liquid in her private parts tends to confirm Sarah’s story to the effect that she had sexual intercourse that day. In the circumstances, Court has no hesitation in finding that th4 prosecution succeeded in proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that Sarah Nampa had sexual intercourse on 18th July 2001. With regard to the third ingredient, that is to say, that the accused the person who committed the offence in question, the only evidence implicating the accused with the offence in question comes from the mouth of the victim (Sarah). In her testimony Sarah narrated that on 18 July 2001 at around 7.00 p.m. after she had escorted her aunt to catch taxi at Kalerwe the accused appeared on the scene. He introduced himself by telling her his name and where he worked. He, then, confessed his love for her: and asked her to go with him to his home at Kyebando Sarah hesitantly agreed. The two then proceeded to the said home where they engaged in sexual intercourse. The accused in his defence denied that he committed the offence ii question. He explained that Nakyejwe framed him as a result of a grudge that arose, two weeks before his arrest, in the market where he ant Nakyejwe worked. He insisted that Sarah did not visit his home a Kyebando in the evening in question and that he did not have sexual intercourse with her. Sarah was confident and firm in what she said in the above area of her testimony. Court, therefore, thinks that she told the truth even in that area. However, it should be remembered that the offence in question was committed at night. For that reason, merely being a truthful witness is not enough. Before Court acts upon Sarah’s evidence it must be satisfied that she could not have been mistaken about the identity of the person who had sexual intercourse with her on the night in question. In other words, Court must be sure that Sarah’s evidence implicating the accused was free from the possibility of’ error or mistake. (See Roria v Republic (1967) E. A. at page 583; and Nabulere v Uganda (1979) HCB 77.)