4 uncorroborated and not capable of being proved as the truth (R. v. SYKES). The conclusion which I am bound to reach in this case is that there was no penile penetration of the prosecutrix by the accused and this I must hold as a fact. Having held that there was no sexual intercourse between the accused and the prosecutrix, I do not find it necessary to determine the issues of consent or the lack of it. From the foregoing, it seems that the prosecution failed to prove the offence of rape with the certainty required by law. I should have proceeded at this stage to discharge and acquit the accused person, but I have seen credible evidence on record, that the accused man-handled the prosecutrix apparently in an attempt to rape her. Not only did the prosecutrix testify that she was bounded up on both legs and hands, but the accused admitted in exhibit “B” that he tried but did not succeed to penetrate her. A clear case of an attempted rape was borne out by the evidence on record. I have referred myself to section 149 of the Criminal Procedure Code and find it fit to convict the accused under section 123 of the Criminal Code with Attempted Rape. In view of the above, I find the accused guilty and convict him under section 123 of the Criminal Code for the offence of Attempted Rape. EMMANUEL A. NKEA JUDGE