2 The prosecution’s case is that on or about the 13/03/2011, the prosecutrix was sent to Kerr Serign to serve food. She was invited by the accused person into his room. While in the room, the accused tied both of hands together. Her legs were also bound together while the accused laid on her and ravished her. She bled and was taken to the hospital where she was examined and a medical report issued to that effect. The report is in evidence as exhibit “A”. When the matter was reported to the police, it was the prosecutrix that led the police to the residence of the accused whereupon he was arrested. Two undated cautionary statements were recorded from the accused person. These statements were jointly admitted in evidence as exhibit B-B1. In her testimony before the Court, the prosecutrix identified the accused as the person that raped her. In his brief defence, the accused denied the charged and stated that he first saw the prosecutrix at the police station. He denied the statements as his. In their addresses to this Court both sides referred the Court to the case of POSU v THE STATE. Mrs. Oduma however went further to urge the Court not to act on the exaggerated evidence of the prosecution which she submitted was based entirely on mere suspicion. As I have stated in a plethora of cases before, 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.