admission, in exhibit “A” is, in my view, the best means of corroborating the act of sexual intercourse alleged by the prosecutrix. I see the later retraction of the accused when he testified on oath as an afterthought. From the foregoing I am satisfied that the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and this I shall hold as a fact. The lone issue which must now be resolved is whether the prosecutrix consented to the act of sexual intercourse. To demonstrate that the act was not consensual, PW2 gave evidence of how her mouth was tied with a head band and how her clothes were stained with blood following the act. PW1 sought to support this evidence by stating that she saw blood dripping from the genital organ of the prosecutrix and found her clothes stained with blood. These pieces of evidence were badly damaged, by exhibit “B” and the evidence of PW4. In exhibit “B” Dr. Secka who examined the prosecutrix within hours of the alleged rape stated as follows: “(1) hymen is absent, (2) no recent injuries (3) whitish vaginal discharge seen”. Under cross examination, he admitted that the rupture of the hymen was not a recent act and that the whitish vaginal discharge was a normal female occurrence. From the evidence of PW4, I find as a fact that the hymen of the prosecutrix was not broken on that day. The evidence of blood dripping from the female genital organ of the prosecutrix and blood stains on her clothes seems to me to be an exaggeration or a mere figment of imagination. From my analyses of these pieces of evidence, I am satisfied that the sexual intercourse was consensual and this I shall hold as a fact. 5