3. That the prosecutrix did not consent. The burden to prove the above elements rest on the prosecution, and the standard of prove required in all criminal cases is prove beyond reasonable doubt. This burden does not shift to the accused person at any stage except in a few statutory exceptions, but the offence of rape is not one of them. The prosecution can discharge the burden and standard of prove by either direct or circumstantial evidence, but in either case the prosecution must succeed on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the defence. If there is any doubt created by the evidence, that doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused. I have referred myself to the cases of WOOLMINGTON v DPP [1953] AC 462 and MILLER v MINISTER OF PENSIONS [1947] 2 ALLER 372,373 and warned myself of what prove beyond reasonable doubts means. I have referred myself to sections 179 and 180 (2) of the Evidence Act and warned myself of the need for corroboration in sexual offence cases. With the above in mind, I now turn to the elements of the offence charged. I deal with them one after the other. Although the defence, by introducing exhibit DE1 has succeeded in exposing some contradictions in the prosecution‟s case, I am of the view that such contradictions were not fundamental as far as the first element of the offence is concerned. In both her testimony before this court and her statement to the police the prosecutrix was consistent that she was sexually assaulted on the 22nd of April 2011. The medico-legal certificate (exhibit 4