this doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused and that is the law (QUEEN v. OBIASA (1962) 1 ALL NLR 651). The second issue that was raised by the evidence on record is whether the accused was the occupant of the room that had the blood drops at its door. The accused maintained throughout the trial that he was not the occupant of that room or any other room in that property. From these denials it seems that Fonday Sonko; the owner of the property was a material witness whose evidence could have settled this crucial issue one way or another. However, the prosecution did not find it necessary to list or call this very important witness. The duty of the prosecution to call all material witnesses whose evidence would settle a vital point in the trial is long established, and the failure of the prosecution to call such a witness means that I cannot reach the conclusion whether the accused was the occupant of that room or not and that is the law (MBALLOW V. THE STATE (19601993) GLR 437). As such the evidence that the accused does not occupy any room in that property was never sufficiently challenged. It is the law that unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence must be regarded as establishing the facts alleged (ANTOINE BANNA v. OCEAN VIEW RESORT LTD (2002-2008) 1 GLR, 1). The prosecution therefore failed to proof that the accused was the occupant of the room and this I shall hold as a fact. And for these reasons, I reach the conclusion that the accused was not the occupant of the room where the alleged rape occurred. 6