Statement — Rape rarely has witnesses; therefore the law has laid the onus of proving innocence on the accused. Conclusions — I. The accused can prove himself innocent. II. Witnesses are available in cases other than rape.

Introduction / Context:
This logical question is about what necessarily follows from a statement regarding burden of proof motivated by scarcity of witnesses in certain crimes. We evaluate each conclusion’s necessity strictly from the given statement.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The statement asserts scarcity of witnesses in rape and a consequent allocation of burden of proof on the accused.
• It does not evaluate whether this burden can, in practice, be discharged.
• It does not generalize about witness availability for all other crimes.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusions must be guaranteed by the statement. Ability to prove innocence (I) is not implied by imposition of burden; it states only where the burden lies. A general claim about other crimes (II) is also not warranted; stating “rarely” for rape does not quantify or characterize all other categories.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Try to negate either conclusion and see whether the original statement becomes inconsistent. It does not; hence neither conclusion is necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Reading normative/legal commentary into logical entailment; do not import outside knowledge about criminal law or statistics.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.