Section 302 (b) commits adultery and his brother, who claims that he saw the accused fleeing the scene after committing the crime. Nothing was recovered from the accused to link him to the crime, as to why the complainant's brother did not visit him. , When she had already left her house to meet him, and why he went to see her sister during the day, when he was employed in a profitable manner, at the time of the complainant's aforesaid brother. The presence of the complainant, therefore, was suspected that the complainant had been staying in his house for a long time and that he had returned when the accused was about to leave the house after the commission of the crime, the complainant's claim accepted. It would be very coincidental that he met his broth in the front of his house, even though there was doubts about the complainant, even though he had his own R claimed to be back, but in those circumstances she testified that on the most unlikely of occasions, the accused's conviction could not be safely established, in the absence of any strong evidence against him. Accordingly, he was acquitted
