12 her consent or that the consent was obtained by fraud, force threat, intimidation, deceit or impersonation or when she is under the age of 14 years. c. That the prosecutrix (victim) is not his wife and d. That the accused had the mens rea, the intention to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent or that the accused acted recklessly not caring whether the prosecutrix consented or not. e. That there was penetration. See LUCKY VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR ??? 40541 (SC); IKO VS THE STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (PT. 332) 195; POSU & ANOTHER VS THE STATE; EZIGBO VS THE STATE (2012) (Supra) ???It is unquestionable that to secure or sustain a conviction for the offence, the prosecution must positively prove beyond reasonable doubt, each and every listed ingredient of the offence. It is needless to emphasize that failure to prove any of the ingredients of the offence means failure to prove the charge even if the other ingredients are proved beyond shadow of doubt and ultimately, the accused will be entitled to a discharge and acquittal. See BELLO VS THE STATE (2012) 8 NWLR (PT. 1302) 207, 237; UTUK VS THE STATE (2010) 34Â NWLR 171 AT 179; HARUNA VS A.G.(2012) 9 NWLR (PT. 1306) 419, 444 ??? 445 PARA G. 13 It has been established over time that the prosecution may establish the guilt of an accused person either by the confessional statement of the accused; by circumstantial evidence; or by the evidence of eye witness account of the commission of the crime. See IGABELE VS THE STATE (2006) 6 NWLR (PT. 975) 100; ADEKOYA VS THE STATE (2012 VOL. 3 M JSC (PT. 11) 77; NIG. NAVY & 2 ORS VS LT. COMMANDER S.A. IBE LAMBERT (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 398) 574, AT 586.Â