evidence and defence and was satisfied that it was voluntarily made and confirms that PW.1 told court. I do not agree with the submission by learned defence counsel that PW.1’s evidence was a concoction because her testimony was not corroborated and no medical evidence was adduced by the prosecution. Lack of medical evidence was not fatal to the prosecution case in light of the strong prosecution evidence. The ingredient of forceful sexual intercourse has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This brings me to the ingredient of whether the accused person is the culprit. In her submission the learned Resident State Attorney stated that her evidence pins the accused person. That the accused’s alibi was disproved. On the other hand, learned defence counsel submitted that his client was not identified by PW.1. That PW.1 contradicted herself on the identity of the accused person since she did not know his names. That there is no evidence that the accused introduced himself to the victim (PW.1). Further that PW.1 does not know who raped her since conditions were difficult at 7:00p.m, that it was dark and in the bush. That the accused was severely assaulted before he made the charge and caution statement. Finally that to show that the accused is not guilty he did not hide after the alleged crime. After weighing the defence story with the prosecution case I am inclined to believe the prosecution version of events. According to the complainant, the offence took place at around 7:00p.m. But several events took place before the actual rape. The accused and others helped the victim lift her sack of maize. They engaged in a conversation. The accused demanded for sex. When PW.1 refused they wrestled her and had sex in turns by force. I agree with the prosecution that the victim had enough time to observe and identify the accused. Secondly, the accused was well known to the victim. He used to play football with her son. This is enough strong evidence to disprove the accused’s defence of alibi. It is trite law that an accused has no duty to prove his alibi. He only has to raise it and it remains the duty of the prosecution to disprove the defence of alibi and place the accused at the scene of crime. Further, the accused’s defence is destroyed by the admitted charge and caution statement which as made voluntarily. The accused cannot be heard to plead that the statement was made under duress and is therefore inadmissible. It formed part of evidence and has been evaluated and admitted like the other evidence on record. It is my considered view that the inconsistencies in the prosecution case wherever they accrued were not major ones and as such prosecution case could not be 5