3 The prosecutrix has alleged in her testimony that the accused was the one that raped 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 her evidence that the prosecutrix understood why she was in court, and positively identified the accused as the man that raped her. However, section 80(2) of the Evidence Act requires corroborative evidence to support the evidence of the prosecutrix and such corroborative evidence must show that there was sexual intercourse, that prosecutrix did not consent, and identify the accused as the perpetrator. The prosecutrix testified that there was blood when the accused laid on her. This fact is corroborated by the evidence of both PW2 and PW3 who testified that the accused had blood stains on her when she returned from Ker Serign. These pieces of evidence suggest that the prosecutrix sustained some injuries on her private part. However, the evidence of PW2, PW3 and the prosecutrix in this regard were badly damaged by the content of the medical report – exhibit “A”. Although the prosecutrix was examined on the very day of the incident, that is, the 13/03/2011, no injuries were recorded on her. I am at a lost, as I cannot possibly imagine how the accused could have had penile penetration of the prosecutrix when her legs were bound up together. Exhibits B1 and C are most inconsistent with the testimony of the prosecutrix before this Court; I do not believe the evidence contained in them, I will therefore not attach any weigh to them as they are