“B”) revealed that the hymen was gone. There were some fresh minor lacerations around the posterior region of the vulva confirming recent coitus. There is therefore no doubt whatsoever that the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted and this I shall hold as a fact. In view of the foregoing, I am satisfied that the prosecution proved that there was carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt. To determine the second element, I find it necessary to state that in her testimony before this court, the prosecutrix stated that the accused had carnal knowledge of her without her consent and that the accused remained on her until when Pap Ceesay came into the room. This suggest that Pap Ceesay either caught them red handed or at least met the accused lying on the prosecutrix in the bedroom. The accused denied all these allegations. His denials are contained in exhibits “A-A1”. Pap Ceesay is therefore a material witness whose testimony would have provided direct evidence to resolve this issue one way or the other. Since the prosecution must succeed on the strength of its case and not on the weakness of the defence, it is the duty of the prosecution to call all material witnesses whose evidence would settle a vital issue. See MARENA v. THE STATE (1960-1993) GLR 396. Although Pap Ceesay was listed on the list of witnesses as PW2, the prosecution for some very strange reasons which can only be attributed to ineptitude and lack of commitment in their prosecutorial function, failed to call this witness. This legal goof on the part of the prosecution is compounded by the fact that the witness statement of 5