7 her and they are currently with her at home. In her evidence in chief she said the accused took her to his house where she was ravished by him, but under cross examination she said she does not know where the accused lives. She said her mother never prevented her from going school and that she told her mother about the rape on the same day that it happened. Her witness statement to the police is a direct contradiction of her testimony before this court. From the above, the prosecutrix does not appear to me as a witness of truth. Her testimony is loaded with contradictions and for a 19 year old girl such as the prosecutrix, these only suggests that she is a mischievous lad; with the risk of deliberate inaccuracy in her entire evidence. Her evidence does not appear credible and capable of believe. I do not believe it as the truth.In view of the outright and consistent denial of the offence by the accused person, it would be unsafe to rely on the evidence of this witness as the basis for conviction. In addition to the above, there is no corroborating evidence; whether direct or circumstantial tending to support the testimony of the prosecutrix that the sexual intercourse was an act of the accused person. It is for this reason and the other reasons already highlighted above, that I have genuine doubts in my mind whether it is the accused and no one else who had carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix. The law is settled, that where there are doubts in a Criminal Case, such doubts must be resolved in favour of the accused. I shall accordingly hold