Whilst PW2 said she had once seen the accused near a fitter shop where bicycles are repaired; the prosecution did not lead any evidence of close observation to support the assertion that the person PW2 purportedly saw in the place where bicycles are repaired was the accused. This piece of evidence is made all the more doubtful by the unchallenged evidence of the accused, as contained in exhibit “A”, that, he is a tire-repairer. The crucial issue which has turned out to be the lone issue for determination in this trial is – who took PW2 away on a bicycle? While PW3 gave evidence that the man who took PW2 away was wearing a green shirt on that day; there is abundant evidence on record that when the accused was arrested on that day, he was wearing a white shirt. Whilst PW2 said the bicycle used by the man who took her away on that day was blue in color; PW4 said the bicycle they saw with the accused was rusty. Suffice to say that when iron rod gets rusty it takes a kind of brownish color. Can I be tempted for once to believe that the person who was wearing a green shirt and had a blue bicycle could still be the accused who wore a white shirt and had a rusty bicycle? This is a fundamental source of doubt as far as it relates to the recognition of the accused as the perpetrator of the offence. The whole circumstances of this case, in my view, put the recognition and identity of the accused person in issue. Again, while PW3 says she called on PW2’s mother but it was her father who came out and chased the culprit with his own bicycle; PW4 said she was alerted by PW2’s mother and she (PW4) explained to her how she had 9