4 never tendered in Court. He urged the court to resolve all these doubts in favour of the prosecution. As a preliminary issue, I will like to deal with the issue of the admissibility of exhibit P1. I have noted the defence challenged the admissibility of exhibit P1 on grounds of involuntariness, but the same was brushed aside by the court per Amie Joof J (as she then was) as a matter of weight and not admissibility. The law is firmly settled that the test of admissibility of an extra-judicial confession is voluntariness. Thus once the defence objects to the caution statement, it is the duty of the court to conduct a mini trial to determine the voluntariness of the statement (Law of Evidence, Hassan B. Jallow, 18). In this instant case, no mini trial was conducted as require. Exhibit P1 was wrongly admitted in evidence; I will accordingly attach no weight to it. I now turn to the substance of the matter before me. The law on rape requires the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that (a) there was carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix; (b) that the act was that of the accused person; and (c) that the prosecutrix did not give her consent. The prosecutrix has alleged in her testimony that the accused had contemptuous sex with her. The accused has denied this allegation. The burden is therefore on the prosecution to prove this allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Section 180 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act, makes it statutorily mandatory for the Court to seek for corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix in