2 prosecutrix has since put to birth. Upon interrogation by the police, the prosecutrix revealed that she was impregnated by the accused. The accused and the family of the prosecutrix live in the same compound. The accused was arrested and three statements recorded from him by the police. These statements are in evidence as exhibits “C”, “D” and “E”. The accused denied the charge both in his statements to the police and in his testimony before this Court. He maintained that he is a palm wine taper who leaves his house in the mornings and returns late; usually after 10 pm. It is alleged by the defence that it was after the prosecutrix returned from a holiday visit to Cassamance, Senegal that she was found to be pregnant. Upon questioning by DW2 as to who was responsible for the pregnancy; the prosecutrix first mentioned one Amadou, then Buba. It was only at the police that she mentioned the name of the accused. In her written address, learned defence counsel framed the issues for determination as follows: (a) Whether the prosecutrix was raped by the accused having regards to the position of the law on corroboration; (b) Whether the prosecution has proved the charge of rape against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. In view of the above, Mrs Gbuji of learned counsel for the defence argued that by not carrying out a paternity test as on the baby of the prosecutrix as ordered by the Court; the prosecution has helped to create doubts as to whether the accused is the author of the pregnancy as alleged. She argued forcefully that the evidence of the prosecutrix was never corroborated in anyway contrary to the mandatory provisions of sections 179 and 180 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act. She submitted that just as there is no direct eye witness testimony so too is there no circumstantial evidence linking the accused with the offence. After referring the Court to a plethora of authorities to support her arguments