2. Whether the entire evidence led by the prosecution proved the charge of incest against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution raised three issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the Accused had sexual intercourse of the victim? 2. Whether the evidence of the prosecution was corrobated as required by law? 3. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? I wish to adopt issue No. 3 raised by the prosecution and that is: Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. I am of the candid view that every other issue raised herein revolves round this issue which borders on proof the resolution of which will surely resolve other issues raised in this appeal. In respect of Count one, the learned defence Counsel, N. Gbuji Esq.submitted that in order to secure the conviction of the accused in a charge of rape, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt: (a) That sexual intercourse took place; (b) That it took place without the consent of a woman or a girl; and (c) That the Accused person was the man who committed the crime. She cited the case of IKO V. State (2003)3 ACLR P. 55. On the element of sexual intercourse having taken place, Counsel submitted that the prosecution must prove not only that sexual intercourse took place but also that it was the Accused and no other person who had sexual intercourse with PW2 (proseecutrix). That PW2 alleged that the Accused had series of sexual intercourse with her resulting to her pregnancy and delivery of a baby. Counsel further contended that the evidence on record showed that the Accused did not have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. That the JUDGMENT – THE STATE VS MUSA KEITA 27/7/2016 Page | 3