very often the best evidence, in that it is evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics, I also agree that circumstantial evidence must be narrowly examined so that a possibility of fabrication to cast suspicions on an innocent person is ruled out. To be sufficient to support a conviction in a criminal trial, circumstantial evidence must be complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused and no one else is the culprit. The facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incompatible of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt particularly as all doubts must be resolved in favour of the accused. Having carefully read through the various submissions and having also carefully considered the totality of evidence adduced before this Court, it seems to me that only one issue stands out for determination in this case, and that is, whether the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix? The element of penetration is the most important and essential determinant of sexual intercourse. And the law is that sexual intercourse is deemed complete upon proof of penetration only. And the law is also settled, that the slightest penetration will be sufficient to constitute the act of sexual intercourse. Thus, where penetration is proved but not of such a depth as to injure the hymen, it will still be sufficient to constitute the crime of rape. Proof of a ruptured hymen is 3