immoral character. Such a woman may be asked if she had connections with other men or the Defendant on some other occasion. It should be noted that her answers as regards whether she had connections with other men cannot be contradicted. It is only the question as to whether she ever had connection with the Defendant that may be contradicted if denied. See the case of R v Krang, {1973} 57 CR. App. Rep. 466 . It was held in this case that on a charge of rape, a witness called by the Defence to prove that the prosecutrix was a prostitute was entitled to give his reasons for saying that she was a prostitute beyond the mere fact of having himself had sexual intercourse with her. Take note that the above position of Section 211 of the Evidence Act 1990 is no longer the position under the Evidence Act 2011 because the new Act did alter the material content of the Section 211 of the 1990 Evidence Act. Section 234 Evidence Act 2011 provides as follows: Where a person is prosecuted for rape or attempt to commit rape or for indecent assault, except with the leave of the court no evidence shall be adduced, and, except with the like leave, no question in cross - examination shall be asked by or on behalf of the defendant, about any sexual experience of the complainant with any person other than the defendant . A vivid look at the Section 234 of the Evidence Act 2011, shows that adducing evidence of the immoral life style of the Complainant or sexual experience with any other person or cross examination in that regard as allowed under Section 211 Evidence Act 1990 is not allowed under Section 234 of the Evidence Act 2011 except with the leave of court. Other Similar Facts Evidence which are Relevant and Admissible Evidence of similar facts are