it expunged the wife’s written statement because she was illiterate and the statement was not read to her as required by section 34B(2)(f) of the Evidence Act. The Court nevertheless upheld admission of the appellant’s cautioned statement, finding voluntariness sufficiently determined. Evaluating identification evidence and corroboration, and having re-assessed the appellant’s alibi under section 388 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Court concluded the prosecution proved rape and grievous harm beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and sentences affirmed. Issues Whether the written statement of the appellant's wife was admissible under section 34B(2) of the Evidence Act where she was illiterate and no declaration was made that the statement was read to her? Whether the appellant's cautioned/confessional statement was voluntary and properly admitted into evidence? Whether identification by recognition (face and voice) aided by moonlight was reliable to ground conviction for rape? Whether the prosecution proved rape and grievous harm beyond reasonable doubt having regard to complainant's evidence, corroboration and the accused's defence of alibi? Whether the failure of the trial court to expressly consider the defence of alibi amounted to a miscarriage warranting interference by the appellate courts? Held The written statement of the appellant's wife was inadmissible and was expunged because the maker was illiterate and section 34B(2)(f) of the Evidence Act (requiring the statement to be read to an illiterate maker and a declaration to that effect) was not complied with; the conditions for admissibility under section 34B(2) are cumulative and must be satisfied. The appellant's cautioned/confessional statement, though objected to at trial, was subjected to an inquiry; despite the trial judge's procedural lapse in not delivering an immediate reasoned ruling, the appellate court was satisfied the voluntariness issue had been properly determined and the caution statement was rightly admitted. Identification by recognition (familiar face and voice), aided by moonlight and supported by prompt complaint to relatives and police, retrieval of blood-stained clothes from the appellant's house and the appellant's confession, cumulatively established the appellant's guilt for rape and grievous harm beyond reasonable doubt. Although the trial court failed to expressly deal with the defence of alibi, the Court of Appeal, invoking section 388 of the Criminal Procedure Act, re-evaluated the evidence and found the alibi unpersuasive; concurrent findings of the lower courts need not be disturbed absent miscarriage of justice. Order The appeal is dismissed in its entirety; the convictions and sentences of the trial court are affirmed. The written statement of the appellant's wife (admitted as an exhibit) is expunged from the record.