What remained to be established was whether it was the appellant who had defiled PW1. What I would look at is whether there was opportunity for him to have sex with PW1. Both DW2 and DW3 stated that they were doing piece work at the Appellant’s plot and that one day the complainant was assigned to do work inside the house of the Appellant and that both of them had queried this and the appellant went to meet the women to resolve the matter with them. So, although the women had stated that there was no opportunity for the appellant to have sex with the complainant they actually are contradicting themselves and contradicting the Appellant in this respect because there was that occasion and the complainant had actually been in the house of the appellant. There indeed was an opportunity for the appellant to have intercourse with the complainant as she was assigned duties inside his house. Then PW1 explained that the appellant would get an opportunity to defile her when she went to do piece work at the house of the appellant. The Appellant would have sex with her then she would go and do the piece work. The lower court discredited the DW2 and DW3 because their evidence contradicted that of the appellant. The two had said that the appellant never found need to supervise the work personally and did not visit the site. The appellant himself stated that he did visit the site and this was also what the two defense witnesses agreed to. The medical expert testified that it would have been immaterial to have the appellant tested for the sexually transmitted infection because of the time period that had elapsed, and that the appellant could not be forced to be tested. The 11