warns that, the accused shall not be liable to be convicted unless such evidence is corroborated by some material evidence in support, thereby implicating the accused. See the Gambian Court of Appeal case of LAMIN NICOL V. THE STATE CRIM APP. 1/80 (UNREPORTED). The evidence of these two witnesses apart from being poles apart was never also corroborated by any other material piece of evidence. In the Gambia Court of Appeal case of BOJANG V. THE STATE (19972001) GR 98, the Court stressed the need to approach evidence of identification with caution, and stated that recognition by a person who knows the other may be more reliable than identification of a stranger. The evidence on record is that all the prosecution witnesses were strangers to the accused. At this stage, I am convinced that the evidence led by the prosecution does not sufficiently identify and point to the accused as the perpetrator of the offence and this I shall hold as a fact. Therefore, the actus reus of the offence under charge has not been established by the prosecution and this I must also hold as a fact. Since the prosecution has failed to establish the actus reus of the offence under charge, it would be worthless and will amount to an exercise in futility if I try to venture into issues of the mens rea. What this means is that, I have a cloud of doubts in my mind whether or not it is the accused person who committed the offence under charge. It is the law that once the prosecution fails to establish the actus reus of an offence such as the instant case, and where there are doubts in the 12