The PW3 failed to mention the names of her two brothers that came knocking; she also failed to mention the names of the two neighbours that were gisting and heard her crying and shouting. Assuming but not conceding that the PW4 was one of the neighbours that heard her crying and shouting, the PW4 under cross-examination stated thus: “I didn’t hear any noise from the room” The PW3 under cross-examination stated that she was living with her father, step mother and 4 other children in a single room and the father used to have sex with her in the night; one wonders how possible, for a family of six who live in a single room apartment for the father to have been making advances and sleeping with his own daughter in the night in the same one room apartment or other time without being caught from other siblings or the step mother; the entire circumstances raise serious doubts. It is also pertinent to note that PW4 (Mrs. Margret Joseph) who testified that she saw the accused person’s son knocking on their door never made mention of PW2. PW4 testified in court that she was the one who saw the accused’s son DW3 knocking at their door and she was there when the door was opened. From the testimonies of PW1, PW4 and PW2, it is clear that the testimonies are contradicting. It is clear from the evidence of PW3, PW4 and DW3 they all made written statements at the police station; however the prosecution failed to produce or tendered these statements in evidence. I am of the view that the failure of the prosecution to produce or tender the written statements of the PW3, PW4 and DW3 is fatal to 24