GROUND FIVE The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that:The above evidence of the victim and other prosecution witness which is consistent was in no way discredited under cross-examination. PARTICULARS OF ERROR 1. The prosecution evidence is full of conflict and inconsistent, capable of raising doubt to culpability of the appellants guilt. 2. It was the PW1 evidence that on 20/2/2015, she was sent to sell bush mango, but PW3 (I. P. O.) who investigated the matter testified that PW1 was sent to sell ukpa on the said fateful day. 3. The I. P. O. have long concluded his investigation and made his findings indicting the appellant for the offence of rape even without medical REPORT an act that showed that the I. P. O. did not properly investigate the case. GROUND SIX The learned trial Judge erred in law when he failed to afford the appellant the constitutional opportunity of cross examining the prosecution witnesses. PARTICULARS OF ERROR 1. The appellant was apparently not represented by counsel during trial at the Court below. 2. None of the witnesses fielded by the prosecution was cross examined by the appellant. 3. Failure to avail the appellant the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses fielded by the prosecution endangered the constitutional right of the appellant.