2 The prosecution’s case is that on or about the 14/02/2012, as the prosecutrix went to throw some rubbish at the dumpsite, she was seized by two boys who sexually assaulted her. The prosecutrix was medically examined and a medical report exhibit “C” – was issued. During the investigations the police were able to trace the accused through one TutiCeesay who described the accused by reference to his alias – Zigla; as one of the two boys who raped the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix also identified the accused both at the police station and before this court as one of those who raped her. Statements were recorded from the accused by the police and these statements are in evidence as exhibits A and B. During the trial the issue of the mental fitness of the accused was raised consequent upon which he was subjected to a psychiatric examination at the RVTH. The medical result is in evidence as exhibit “D”. I now turn to the substance of the matter before me. The law on rape requires the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that (a) there was carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix; (b) that the act was that of the accused person; and (c) that the prosecutrix did not give her consent. The prosecutrix has alleged in her testimony that the accused was one of the boys that seized and ravished her. After warning myself of the need to deal with evidence of the prosecutrix; a child of six (6) years with caution, I am however satisfied from the totality of her evidence that she understood why she was in court, understood the need to tell the truth and positively identified the accused as one of the boys that ravished her.