I agree with both learned counsel that PW.1 was the only eye witness of what happened at the material time. She told court that she was sexually assaulted by the accused. The accused and another had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The offence took place before dark. PW.1 was on her way when she met the accused, Yobu and Eseuna. The accused asked her for sex. She refused thereafter both accused and Yobu wrestled her and had forceful sex with her one by one. While the accused had sex with PW.1, Yobu held the complainant to prevent resistance. He closed her mouth so that she could not raise an alarm. Yobu also had sex with the complainant after the accused. The two ran away on hearing an oncoming motorcycle. PW.1 narrated the ordeal to PW.2 and PW.3 at the roadside. I was satisfied with the consistent evidence of the complainant. She told the truth. Just as I cautioned assessors on the need to find other evidence to support evidence of a single identifying witness, I caution myself as well. PW.1 was familiar with the assailants. The accused was an acquaintance. She usually saw him in the village. She was travelling during day. The accused and others at large helped her lift a sack of maize she was carrying. Thereafter they moved together and talked to each other. The accused demanded for sex. PW.1 refused. Force ensued. In my view this was sufficient time for PW.1 to have confirmed the identity of the accused. Although the other prosecution witnesses said the victim did not tell them the names, I was convicted by her testimony that she revealed the names of her assailant. The time lag between when the accused met the victim and the time the offence took place was long enough for her to have identified the accused. In the case of Abdulla Bin Wendo & Anor. V. R (1953) 20 EACA 186 it was held that: “the testimony of a single witness regarding identification must be tested with the greatest care. The need for caution is even greater where it is known that conditions favouring correct identification were difficult. What is needed before convicting is other evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused.” The evidence of PW.1 was sufficiently corroborated by that of PW.2 who found her narrating what befell her to PW.4 Opolot Stephen. The complainant was in a distressful condition. She was crying.In sexual offences, the distressful condition of the victim amounts to sufficient corroboration. The admitted charge and caution statement (Exhibit P.2) corroborates the prosecution evidence by PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4. I have weighed the veracity of Exhibit P.2 with the entire prosecution 4