PW2 was never challenged at all. The accused never reported the matter or the missing phone to the police as he should by law do. The phone was only recovered from the accused after his arrest. When I put these facts together they form a perfect jigsaw which unshakingly points to the determination of the accused to retain exhibit “A”. These pieces of evidence though circumstantial in nature are nevertheless compelling, cogent and unequivocal and glaringly establish the fact that the accused intended to permanently deprive the prosecutrix of her phone (exhibit “A”) and this I shall hold as a fact. The first element of section 272 of the Criminal Code has therefore been established by the prosecution with the certainty required by law. On the issue of violence; I must say straight away that apart from the fact that the accused himself testified of how he gave the prosecutrix some blows with his fist, the prosecutrix herself led strong evidence; in an electrifying manner which graphically visualized the manner in which she was assaulted by the accused. She was threatened and beaten several times on her face by the accused. When she was very weak to resist the accused, she was taken to an isolated spot where she was forced into the back seat of the car and ravished by the accused. I watched the prosecutrix broke down into tears and she narrated this crucial part of her ordeal to the full glare of the court. These were certainly no crocodile tears. Furthermore the accused himself testified that exhibit “A” was recovered from the back seat of his car. He had held unto the dress of the prosecutrix to force her back into the car as she wanted to escape. The prosecutrix also held his hands and the steering wheel. All these pieces of evidence positioned the prosecutrix 7