The learned trial Judge erred in law and in facts when he held that:Even though he denied having carnal knowledge of the victim while giving evidence in Court, part of his evidence in Court is that he took the PW1 and one Eni Irem to his house from where the victim escaped through the back door. PARTICULARS OF ERROR 1. It was the appellants evidence that PW2, the mother of PW1 pleaded with him to assist her in looking for PW1 who according to her was missing, which the defendant obliged her. 2. In the course of assisting the PW2 in looking for PW1, the appellant found PW1 and immediately took her to her parents house, but nobody was found there, necessitating the appellant to take the PW1 back to his house and later brought the PW1 back to her parent house. 3. The fact that the defendant gave evidence in Court that he took the PW1 to his house after he found that the PW1s mother was not around, without more, cannot make him liable for the offence of rape. GROUND THREE The learned trial Judge erred in law and in facts when he held as follows:Let me also recall at this stage that the I. P. O. While giving evidence testified that every effort made by the investigating team for the accused to take them to the house of Eni Irem was rebutted (sic) (rebuffed) by the accused and the villagers informed the team on further inquiry that there is nobody by that name in the community. PARTICULARS OF ERROR