door with his pants down, nor the fact that he told PW4 that he was relieving himself. It can only be assumed that he failed to challenge this piece of evidence because it was true. Generally, when a person has been charged with some serious allegations, it is natural to expect that the person will immediately say something to refute the same if indeed the allegation is untrue. Where the accused remains silent or suppresses material facts it is assumed that the accused actually admits the allegation. When PW2 asked the Appellant about being found in PW4’s bathroom with PW1, instead of denying the issue he asked who had informed him about the matter. This in my view was suppression of material facts. If indeed nothing had happened between him and Martha his first concern would not have been about the source of information but refuting the allegation. I find therefore that the appellant was properly indentified. PW1 testified that she had had sexual intercourse on a number of occasions. Her evidence was corroborated by that of the medical report which the Clinical Officer gave evidence about the physical changes that had taken place in the complainant’s vagina and the causes for this. He also stated that the maturing period of the sexually transmitted infections, which in my view, as found by the lower court, corroborated the evidence of PW1 as to when she had the several sexual intercourse episodes, is 14 days and above. Since the sexual intercourse of December, more than 14 days had elapsed, I find this as a fact. 10