On the issue of burden of proof in Criminal Cases, the defence Counsel argued that the burden is static. It never shifts. It is always on the prosecution to convince the Court that the Accused is guilty of the offence he is charged with. And this must be done beyond reasonable doubt. She cited the case of MILIER V.MINISTER OF PENSIONS (1947)2 ALL ER 372 – 373 to buttress the submission: The prosecution Counsel also cited the same case, relying on Denning, J. (as he then was) who held thus”, proof beyond reasonable doubt need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt.” While the defence urged the Court to discharge and acquit the Accused for want of evidence, the prosecution prayed the Court to find the Accused guilty, convict and sentence him accordingly. Section 121 of the Criminal Code Cap. 10:01, Vol. 3 Laws of the Republic of The Gambia, 2009 stipulates that, “A person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl without her consent, or with her consent if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of bodily harm, or by means of false representations as to the nature of the act, or, in the case of a married woman, by personating her husband, commits the felony termed rape.” PW1, the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) testified on 9th June, 2015. He tendered exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’. He said in December, 2014 their office received a report from the office of Gender Based Violence that the Accused sexually abused his granddaughter Alimatou Saidy at Willengara Kombo North. He arrested the Accused and recorded exhibits A and B. Under cross examination, he said apart from recording exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ he did nothing else in this case. That the Accused told him that he was not the grandfather of the prosecutrix. That there were two boys who lived with the Accused and were sleeping in the same room with the prosecutrix. That they were many people living in the same compound where the Accused lived. He was not re-examined. PW2 (prosecutrix) testified on the same date. She said the Accused is her grandfather. That the Accused is her mother’s step father. That sometime JUDGMENT – THE STATE VS MUSA KEITA 27/7/2016 Page | 7