(a) that there was unlawful sexual intercourse involving the prosecutrix; (b) that the prosecutrix could not or did not consent; and (c) that the accused participated in the unlawful sexual intercourse. These ingredients may be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence or upon the confession of the accused person himself (AHMED v. THE NIGERIAN ARMY (2011)1 NWLR 89). It is trite law that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each and every essential ingredients of the offence charged before a meaningful conviction can be secured (MOMODOU JALLOW v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1960- 1993) GLR 39 and WOOLMINGTON V DPP (1953) A.C. 462). Having carefully read through the submissions of both sides and having also carefully considered the totality of evidence adduced before this Court, it seems to me that only one issue stands out for determination in this case, and that is, whether the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix? I now attempt an answer to this case by looking at the evidence on record. There is the eye witness account of the alleged rape by PW4. The evidence of the prosecutrix though unsworn is similar in material particulars with that of PW4. On the evidence, I found as a fact that upon medical examination of the prosecutrix on the 2 November, one 3