counsel contended that the allegation of rape cannot be supported by the evidence on record and urged the court to hold that the prosecutrix was never raped. She submitted that the allegation of theft cannot be sustained by the evidence on record. She contended that the evidence on record is not cogent, compelling nor equivocal and therefore cannot result to a conviction. She urged me to discharge and acquit the accused person. I will now turn to the offences under charge and in doing so I will first set out the position of the law on the constitutive elements of both offences. I will proceed thereafter to deal with count two before turning to count one. The law on rape requires that the prosecution must prove the that (i) there was carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix; (ii) that the act was that of the accused person; and (iii) that the prosecutrix did not consent. With regards to the section 272 offence (robbery with actual violence), the law requires the prosecution to prove that (i) the accused stole property; and (ii) that he did so with the use of actual violence. I note that both offences with which the accused has been charged attracts the very severe punishment of imprisonment for life. I therefore hold the strong view that to succeed; the prosecution must lead copious, cogent, compelling and unequivocal evidence which unshakingly points to the accused as the man who committed the offences. The prosecution therefore has the un-shifting burden of proving all the ingredients of the offences with which the accused has 5