3 pulled her skirt and pant, she shouted but no one came in aid. Her nude wear was torn in the process. The accused laid on her and sexually assaulted her. She threw away her inner-wears that same day. The accused denied the charge both in his voluntary statement to the police and in his testimony before this Court. He raised an alibi in his cautionary statement. He said on oath that the prosecutrix has never been to his house and to the best of his knowledge does not know where he lives. He lives with his parents in Bundung Bantaba as tenants in a compound with five apartments and shares the same room with his brothers. He denied the content of the cautionary statement as his. In his brief oral address to the Court Mr. Odumbi James, learned counsel for the State, relied on the evidence of the prosecutrix and the medico-legal report to establish carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix. He also relied on exhibit P1 and the evidence of the prosecutrix to establish that it was the act of the accused and that there was no consent. While admitting that there are contradictions in the prosecution’s case, Counsel urged me to hold them as minor contradictions which should not affect the prosecution’s case. He urged the Court to find for defilement I the alternative. In his reply, Mr. E.E. Chime of learned counsel for the defence counsel centered his submissions on the contradictions in the prosecution’s case which he said raised serious doubts on the guilt of the accused. He thundered that vital exhibits such as the torn under-wears and skirts were