5 nights as alleged by PW1. What is germane is that the Accused had sexual intercourse with PW1. There is therefore, uncontroverted evidence of sexual intercourse and this I shall also hold as a fact. The accused both under cross-examination and in his evidence-in-chief did not advance any other cogent reason why he detained or locked up PW1 for eight (8) days in his room. I will therefore not only find that the accused had carnal knowledge of PW1, but also that he detained her for that purpose, and this I shall further hold as a fact. Turning to the issue of consent or the lack of it, I must say straight away that there is no direct evidence on record where PW1 or any other witness for that matter, said the sexual intercourse between PW1 and the accused was obtained with force. All what PW1 said is that “all the nights I spent there the accused had sex with me”. However, having already held that the accused detained PW1 against her wish, and even if she did not resist or did not say she was forced, it immediately appears to me that under the peculiar circumstances of this case; where the accused had detained PW1 for the purpose of having carnal knowledge of her, it cannot be expected that PW1 consented to the eventual act of sexual intercourse and this I shall also hold as a fact. The evidence on record is also categorical; that it was the accused who invited PW1 to join him in the van to Essau; that it was the accused that locked up PW1 in his room at Sanchu Mutel; and that it was the accused who had sexual intercourse with PW1. All these