delivered a reserved judgment on the 4th day of May, 2017 whereby the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal is against the said judgment and it is anchored on a notice of appeal, filed on 04/07/2017, containing eleven grounds. In the appellants brief filed on 20/10/2017, five issues for determination were crystallized from the eleven grounds of appeal as follows: 1. Whether the appellants right to fair hearing was not violated when the trial Court refused the request of appellants new counsel to re-call and cross examine PW3? Distilled from ground 3. 2. Whether the trial Court was right in relying on Exhibit B the confessional statement in spite of the fact that it is inadmissible (the appellant being an illiterate person) and that it lacks credibility? Distilled from grounds 4, 5, and 6. 3. Whether the trial Court was right in convicting the appellant on the basis of Exhibit C, the medical report? Distilled from grounds 1 and 2. 4. Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW1), PW2 and PW3 are sufficiently credible to confirm that it was the appellant that defile PW1? Distilled from grounds 9 and 10. 2 5. Whether the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial Court and to commence from the date of judgment was right? Distilled from grounds 7 and 8. The respondent filed its brief on 05/11/2018 and it was deemed as properly filed on 19/11/2018. The respondent raised a lone issue for determination as follows: Whether in view of the evidence on record the learned trial judge were right in law when they held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had unlawful carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix on the 6th day of September, 2014.