It is also trite law that where there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on a material fact such contradictions ought to be explained by evidence by the prosecution. In the absence of such an explanation for such contradictions, the court cannot speculate on imagined explanation for such contradictions and proceed to choose which of the witnesses or versions to believe. In the present case I am unable to choose which of the two versions of PW1’s evidence under examination in chief. I am also unable to choose between the testimony of PW1 under cross-examination and the 2nd PW’s testimony as to the nature of the assault inflicted on PW1 by the accused. Apart from the fact that there are material inconsistencies or contradiction in the prosecution’s case as to whether there was sexual intercourse or buggery between the accused and PW1, the evidence of PW2 as to her whereabouts when the incident took place is also marred with inconsistencies and contradictions. The evidence of PW2 as to why she noticed that PW1 was raped one week after the incident when they were living in the room does not lend credence to the prosecution’s case. PW2 told the court that when the incident took place she was at the roadside to buy air time for her phone and then in the same breath told the court that she was at Mudeka at the time of the offence. I find it hard to believe that PW2 could not discover that her daughter was raped because she was a petty trader who was moving from place to place to sell her wares. Even if she did not notice it what about her roommate who remained in her flat in her absence. Why did her roommate not notice any abnormality in PW1. Why was she not called as a witness for the prosecution. The answers to these questions would have helped to elucidate what happened between the accused and PW1. In the upshot 1 find it unsafe to convict the accused of the offence of indecency to child contrary to section 346(4) of the Penal Code as charged in count one. He is therefore discharged and acquitted in count one. As regards count two which accuses the accused of causing slight harm to PW1 contrary to section 281 of the Penal Code it is alleged in the charge that the offence was committed at the same time and place as the offence of indecency to child for which the accused has been acquitted. Since the evide4nce adduced by the prosecution to prove the offence in count one is inconsistent and contradictory, I hold that it would be unsafe to rely on the same evidence to convict the accused of the offence of slight harm contrary to section 281 of the Penal Code. That being the case, the accused is hereby discharged and acquitted on count two of the charge. 7