to her and because a group of about three boys were approaching him aggressively he then drove off. He wanted to drive to the police but saw a pregnant woman by the side of the road that he took to the hospital. One of the ladies with the pregnant woman picked up a phone at the back seat and gave to him. This phone is exhibit “A”. He went to City Pop several times to hand over the phone to the prosecutrix but did not find her there. At the close of the hearing, both sides filed written briefs of arguments. In his brief of arguments, Mr. Udombi, the learned state counsel conceded to the need for corroborative evidence in sexual offence cases under section 180 of the Evidence Act, but argued that while there is corroboration in the instant case, the statutory requirement of corroboration in rape cases should be considered as unconstitutional as it discriminates against women qua women. In support of this head of argument learned counsel referred the court to the Uganda Court of Appeal case of BASOGA PATRICK v UGANDA (Cr App 42/2002). Learned counsel further submitted that there was strong circumstantial evidence from which the court could infer the commission of the offences. Mrs. Ogbedo of learned counsel for the defence submitted that there is need for the evidence of PW1 to be corroborated, but that there was no such corroboration. Learned Defence counsel noted that there were contradictions in the prosecution’s case as far as the time the prosecutrix boarded the taxi is concerned. She urged the court to resolve the contradictions in favor of the accused person. Learned 4