From the foregoing, it now seems to me that the only issue that stands out for determination in this case, is whether the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix? The prosecution in urging me to answer this question in the affirmative; has placed heavy reliance on the blood drops that were traced to the door of a room said to be occupied by the accused. The accused in denying the charge, testified that he does not live in the compound but rather watches over the property in the night. He does not have a room of his own there but watches the property from a bench outside the door. He goes to the farm everyday; including the date in question and only returns by 4 pm as such he could not have been the person who sexually assaulted the prosecutrix if at all she was raped there. The first issue that was raised by the evidence adduced by the prosecution is the identification of the accused by the prosecutrix as the person who defiled her. Although the prosecution witnesses all conceded that there was no Identification Parade conducted in line with the TUMBUL GUIDELINES; and this was a fit case for an identification parade, the ability of the prosecutrix to properly identify her assailant was seriously damaged and discredited when the prosecutrix was asked in Chambers to identify her assailant and she pointed at the Judge (that is my humble self). From this, I reached the conclusion that the prosecutrix could not have properly identified the person who ravished her and this I shall hold as a fact, and is doing so I will not rely on this piece of evidence in favour of the prosecution. This raises doubts in my mind as to who the real culprit is, 5