! • J18 said is similar in some material aspects with the present case. In that case, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court when it stated that: "Firstly, the accused person in this case is a well known person to the victims such that his identity cannot be mistaken. He was a person they regarded as a parent and so it is true that they feared to disclose what was happening to their mother." On the issue of corroboration as to commission of the offence, it was submitted that the prosecutrix testified in very clear terms and had an. excellent demeanour, according to the trial court that it was the appellant who took her to Maila Lodge in Helen Kaunda and had sex with her. She said that she narrated details which are unnecessary to recount but which were not challenged. She noted that PWl was not challenged in cross-examination about what the appellant told her that it was her grandfather who was behind everything. To support her argument, she called in aid the case of JOSEPH MULENGA & ANOR v THE PEOPLE8 where the Supreme Court observe that: "During trial, parties have the opportunity to challenge evidence by cross-exam1n1ng witnesses .... ..... when prosecution witnesses are narrating actual occurrences, the accused persons must challenge those facts that are disputed. Leaving assertions which are incriminating to go unchallenged diminishes the efficacy of any ground of appeal based on those very assertions which were not challenged during trial."