their case. The presumption therefore under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act is hereby invoked. It is also important to note that the testimony of PW”3 is completely different from the testimony of PW4, while PW4 testified that she asked PW3 (Emmanuella Bam Eko) what she was doing with her father when they locked the door and PW3 said her father was checking her. PW3 testified that it was the next day, when her Dad (the accused) went to work that two of their neighbours who were sitting in front of their door asked her why she was crying and shouting she said nothing. She testified that her neighbour asked her to say the truth that she would help her but she refused. As stated earlier, PW4 adduced evidence to the effect that she did not hear anything like noise, struggle or resistance. PW3 on the other hand testified that two of her neighbour who were sitting in front of their door charting heard her crying and shouting. It is instructive to note again, that PW4 under cross-examination stated that she came back from her shop to take her bath by past three o’clock and it was that same day she asked PW3 what she was doing with her father when they locked the door. PW4 also testified that it was the same day that she reported the alleged incident to Mama Rachel. She said that from where she was sitting she was not able to see the inside of the room of the accused person. She testified that she was the one who called Mama Rachel and told her that the accused person son was knocking at their door and that it was after she told Mama Rachel that Mama Rachael called Mama Chidinma and explained her 25