First of all, Court admits that the condition of lighting obtaining at the time the accused met Sarah was not clarified. However, it is a fact that 7.00 p.m., which ordinarily marks the beginning of nightfall in Uganda, is not quite a dark part of the night. This is particularly so, since Uganda is geographically located at the Equator. Even in the absence of additional lighting at that hour, it is quite possible for one to recognise another person especially another person one has seen before. In the Instant case, the accused was not a stranger to Sarah. She had seen him before at Kalerwe market where he sold sweet potatoes near her mother’s stall. In addition, when the two met that evening the accused made sure that Sarah did not mistake him for someone else. He introduced himself to Sarah by telling her his name and his place of work, At that point, Sarah must have been doubly sure of the identity of the person who had presented himself to her, Thereafter, the accused and Sarah remained together and only parted company after having had sexual intercourse at the home of the accused. With the above evidence in mind, Court is satisfied that Sarah could not have been mistaken about the identity of the person who had sexual intercourse with her on 18th July 2001: and that person is the accused. In the circumstances, Court thinks that the prosecution succeeded in proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is the person who committed the offence in question. Before concluding this matter it is important to point out that there are several contradictions in the prosecution case. The first one is in respect of time. Sarah testified that on the material day she left home to escort her aunt to catch a taxi at around 7.00 p.m. and returned at 11 .00 pm. However, her mother (Nakyejwe) testified that Sarah left home that day at 6.00 p.m. and returned at 8.00 p.m. The second contradiction is in respect of distance. Sarah testified that the accused worked 2 meters away from her mother’s stall at Kalerwe market, but her mother testified that her stall was 10 meters away from the accused person’s stall. The third contradiction is in respect of Sarah’s virginity before the offence in question was committed. Dr. Kalyemenya’s evidence suggested that Sarah was not a virgin before the offence in question was committed. However, in her evidence Sarah insisted that she was a virgin before the offence in question was committed. Court carefully considered all the above contradictions. In its opinion, the first two are very minor. Obviously, they do not affect the substance of the prosecution case and must, therefore,