(3) Whether the Court below was right to have affirmed the decision of the trial lower Court that the defence of alibi put up by the appellant was belated. (4) Whether failure of the Court below to make pronouncement on the issue of the sentence of the appellant with hard labour is a breach of fair hearing. Appellants arguments on his first issue are three pronged. Firstly, it is contended, the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses are inconsistent in themselves and contradictory against each other such that no reasonable tribunal would rely on them to convict an accused person. It is glaring from PW1s evidence in chief at page 13 line 3 to 5 and under cross examination at page 14 lines 9 to 14 of the record of appeal that the prosecutrix is not certain as to whether it was his penis or finger that the appellant inserted into her vagina. A conviction under Section 283 of the Penal Code, it is submitted, endures only on proof of penetration of the appellants penis into PW1's vagina. The absence of clear evidence establishing this fact, argues learned counsel, is fatal to appellant's conviction. The testimonies of PW2 and PW3, learned appellants counsel further contends, are not any helpful to the prosecution. The bruises and sperm PW2 testified to have seen in PW1s private part remain unlinked to the appellant. There is no scientific report establishing the fact of the sperm spotted on PW1's private parts as being the same trace found on a trouser recovered from the house of the appellant and that the very sperm is that of the appellant. Exhibit C, the medical report following the doctor's examination of PW1, only establishes bruises around PW1s private part and the rupture of her hymen. Again, it is argued, the document does not link the appellant with either the bruises and most importantly, the rupture of PW1's hymen.