rejected. I regarded the inconsistencies as minor and did not point to deliberate untruthfulness.For example PW.2 arrived at the scene of crime far later than PW.4. He found when the complainant had narrated to PW.4 what befell her. I also believed that PW.1 revealed to PW.4 the identity of her assailants. The assessors in their joint, but not so clear opinion, were of the view that prosecution had not proved the offence against the accused person beyond any reasonable doubt because the circumstances and light at the time of offence was not favourable. I do not agree with the opinion of the assessors in view of the reasons I have given herein. Prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with the complainant. There was penetration of the accused’s male organ into the complainant’s female organ. There was sufficient light to enable identification. There was no mistaken identity. Consequently I will find the accused guilty and convict him of the offence of rape contrary to sections 117 and 118 of the Penal Code Act. Musota Stephen JUDGE 7.4.2011 7.4.2011 Accused produced. Alpha Ogwang for State. Mudangha for accused absent. Magirigi on brief. Loyce Interpreter. Resident State Attorney: Case for judgment. Magirigi: Ready to receive the judgment. Court: Judgment delivered. Court: Musota Stephen JUDGE 7.4.2011 Mudangha arrived while judgment was being read. Resident State Attorney: The convict is a first offender. The offence is serious and carries a maximum sentence of death. It is a fundamental breach of human rights. We pray for a 6