I had earlier held that the criminal charge might be in connection w it h assault occasioning harm and probably stealing . From the evidence of PWl, both in his examination-in-chief and cross examination, the I crucial issue was the altercation between a staff of the PW1 and the defendant (who is the respondent in the instant appeal) . That altercation allegedly led to destruction of some of the PWl's properties . All these began on 20-2-2009 . On the same day, PWl and the respondent had a brawl consequent upon which the PWl went to report the case to CPS, Area Command and finally petitioned the Commiss ioner of Police . The real, crucial or material issue ought to be whether the incident as narrated by PWl C actually did take place . -~ 0 The respondent's counsel from her line of questions in · the cross examination appeared not to be contesting that the matter was actually reported to the police so as to make the dates of the various complaints by PWl very crucial or material. As matter of fact, the impliedly agreed that PWl made such complaints . Therefore what would the prosecution gain or lose if the dates on which various complaint were made do not tally . Agreed that the PWl gave inconsistent evidence on the actual dates, the prosecution, to my mind had the investigating police officer (IPO) to call as a witness . Indeed, PWl had his opportunity to adduce all material evidence to prove his allegation when he was testifying in evidence in chief. He 13 2- 0 ~ -> ___ s; _ -,· respondent \ I -, ·'...., 7