question was put on pw3 by the court to confirm her age and capacity to understand the consequences of swearing under oath she responded by saying that “I don’t know the implication of telling the truth”. The learned counsel is of the view that buy his answer pw3 does not understand the duty of speaking the truth and therefore not a competent witness whose testimony should be regarded by this Hon. Court. It is to be noted that this court on the realization that pw3 did not at first understand the question put to her by this court, further asked her more questions and by her response to those questions this court reached the conclusion that pw3 was a competent witness and was allowed by this court to give an unsworn testimony before this court and hence she testified as pw3. The defence counsel further stated in her written address that even if this court reached the conclusion that pw3 can give an unsworn testimony such evidence cannot solely ground the conviction of the defendant except such evidence is corroborated by another evidence actual or circumstantial. It is the submission of the learned defence counsel that the evidence of pw4 cannot corroborate the evidence of pw3, being a hearsay 18