I ; • J22 themselves and provided no proof to the issue the appellant raised. She further submitted that DW2 and DW3 contradicted themselves on the time that the prosecutrix used to go home. Hence the trial court found them to be untruthful witnesses. She relied on the case of MWAMBONA v THE PEOPLE 9 where the Court of Appeal said that: "In evaluating the evidence of the appellant, the learned trial judge referred to certain contradictions ...... For these and other reasons, the learned trial judge held that the appellant's story could not reasonably be true, and we agree, the appellant was patently lying on material points going to the root of his story and the learned trial judge had no alternative but to reject his evidence." She submitted that in the instant case, the Court accepted the prosecution evidence because it was cogent and it found that the prosecutrix was a stable and consistent witness. To support this position, Mrs. Kachaka relied on the case of DONALD FUMBELO v THE PEOPLE 10 where the Supreme Court gave guidance that: "In trying to ascertain what weight should be attached to the testimony of a witness on a particular issue, an important factor that should be considered is the consistency of the testimony. Hence a lot of weight will be attached to the testimony if the witness starts showing at the earliest opportunity, his version on the issue . ................................................................................................