An indolent party, also, cannot complain of lack of fair hearing and the Court cannot aid him in such a case. See Vincent Ugo v. Diokpa Ummuna (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 102 at 131, per M. D. Muhammad, JSC. Without more, I resolve this issue against the appellant. ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the offence of defilement, with which the appellant was charged, was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by admissible and credible evidence. The substance of the appellants complaint on this issue is that he objected to the admissibility of the purported confessional statement exhibit B and retracted it; that during his evidence-in-chief he denied making exhibit B and under cross examination he denied attending Erho Primary School and stopped at primary five; that he denied working as a slaughterman in an abattoir; in exhibit B written by PW3 there is nothing to confirm any compliance with illiterate jurat as required by Section 3 of the Illiterate Protection Law of Delta State, 2006. 17 He emphasized the need for documents signed by an illiterate to contain an illiterate jurat. Learned counsel argued that it was wrong for the trial Court to have held that: An illiterate jurat on a document executed by an illiterate is only applicable to contractual documents. In urging the Court to hold that the offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, learned counsel for the appellant further contended, inter alia, that: (a) exhibit C a medical report was inadmissible because it was allegedly made by an expert who was not called as a witness and no reason was given for the failure to call him; (b) there is no evidence on record of the qualification and competence of the maker of exhibit C; (c) exhibit C was not handed to the police personally but to PW1 a child alleged to be (six) years old; (d) PW3, not being the maker of exhibit C, was not competent to give answers to queries or questions on it, and the evidence of PW3 on exhibit C was documentary hearsay;