... .., J26 DW3 to answer all the questions put to them in cross-examination. We also noted the contradictions in the appellant and his witnesses' evidence, especially DW2 and DW3, as highlighted in the respondent's submissions. We are of the considered view that the trial court discounted the defence evidence because of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the said evidence. The trial court also discounted the defence evidence due to the lack of credibility of the said evidence because of the untruthfulness of the witnesses. We also observed from the defence evidence that the appellant DW2 and DW3 focused on trying to show and convince the trial court that the prosecutrix is a person of loose morals rather than telling the truth. In view of the ingredients of the offence of incest, we find that it. is irrelevant that the prosecutrix had a boyfriend that she could have had sex with because as Mrs. Kachaka properly submitted, this case is not about proving PWl's virginity, it is about establishing that the appellant knowingly had a sexual encounter with his niece, irrespective of the number of times. In the circumstances, the entries in PWl's note book or diary about her sexual fantasies are irrelevant to discounting the charge. We equally find no merit in ground two and we dismiss it.