thinks his UGX 240,000/=. to have been on PW2 whom she to on ,,.,...,....,....,,.,... -a-nd carefu!fy considered arr lly witnesses demeanors of accused have carefully and that of the . I find that, the prosecution witnesses were truthful and reliable. On the other hand I found accused unreliable and unbelievable. All the prosecution witnesses, especially PW3 gave their evidence in a straight forward manner. accused on his part was jumpy and eye witness, told court, calmly the victim fell ng in candidly box. on who was the material day while home, she took her to the sitting room to sleep and she went back to the kitchen. Then heard cause and found the accused on top victim crying. She went to find out the the victim defil her. saw him put his penis in her was 12.30 p.m. during day She accused reside in the same village and in PW2's home. also acknowledged that he was there was no possibility Secondly PW2 that, was also in PW2's home. from PW2's home. In such mistaken identity on part used where PW3. stay with them and according to PW4, being informed by PW3, about the accused defiling the victim, still in the as he used went victim was. The accused raised a possibility of a grudge between himself and PW2 over his UGX 240,000/= which given the di given her for custody. any ground alleges to in my considered view, how can this affect given by PW3, who has nothing to PW2 by the accused? PW3, found with the money still a young girl of 14 and I do legedly see her to frame the accused with such heinous crime. (See the case 5