2 school compound where he sexually assaulted her on a mattress that was lying on the floor. The prosecutrix later reported to her mother who observed her, took her the hospital and then to the police. All the medical reports alleged to have been issued were rejected in evidence by this Court on the 13/12/2010 and the 11/01/2011 respectively. The prosecutrix subsequently took the police to the room where she was sexually assaulted and also identified the accused both to her teacher and the police as the man who sexually assaulted her. Suffice to say that at all times material to this alleged offence, the accused worked as caretaker of ROSATOU nursery school where the prosecutrix schooled at the time. The accused person denied the charge both in his statements to the police and in his testimony before this court. Perhaps it is important to state that at the close of the trial both sides were given the opportunity to file written addresses. While the defense filed and adopted a four page written address, the prosecution decided to waive their right to address me thus paving the way for this judgment. In her written submission Counsel for the defense harped on the lack of corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix and concluded that the requirements of Section 180 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act have not been satisfied by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. She framed the lone issue for determination as follows: • Whether the prosecution has proved the case of defilement against the accused beyond reasonable doubts in this case?