24 since it was the accused who had contact with the PW6 alone when he picked her from school that day and brought her home. The above finding and conclusion is unassailable. It cannot be faulted and I have no reason to fault same. The learned trial Judge was also accused of improper evaluation of evidence of PW4 & PW6, that if she had properly evaluated their evidence she would have seen material and unresolved contradiction therein as to whether it was the Appellant who committed the act or a boy in the school as earlier stated by PW6 to PW4 before changing her position, a contradiction which he argued, the learned trial Judge did not consider. The evidence of PW4 referred to is contained in pages 25 26 of the record when she stated in cross examination: I said Hajara was brought home at 1:40pm. Yes from that time till when we went to the hospital I kept asking her who did that to her and she kept saying it was a boy in the school. Hajara was frightened by the accused that was why she did not state earlier on it was him and she said he told her to say it was a boy in school. Yes Hajara said the accused put his finger in 25 her vagina. In her own evidence PW6 also explained why she had earlier stated it was one boy in the school who did that to her. Her words:-