his daughter told him that I had unlawful carnal knowledge with his daughter. He then took me to Chairman place and for there, they now carry me to the station Abraka..I know that what I did is bad. Is a hand work of devil. The ingredients of the offence of defilement were set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Boniface Adonike v. The State (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1458) 237 at 284 285, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC as follows: Section 218 supra creates the offence of defilement of a girl under the age of 11 years. To succeed the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a)that the accused/appellant had sex with the child who was under the age of 11 years. (b)that there was penetration into the vault of the vagina. (c)the evidence of the child must be corroborated. The evidence for defilement is the same as in rape expect that for defilement it is immaterial whether the act was done with or without the consent of the child. This is the well laid down position of the law, that a girl under the age of 11 is a child and so is not capable of consenting to sex. The Court would hold that she did 27 not consent even if she did consent. A child cannot consent to sex, that is the position of the law. See also Edwin Ezigbo v. The State (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1326) 318. In this case, the prosecution proved that the appellant had unlawful sexual intercourse with the victim on or about the 6th day of September, 2014, when the victim was under 11 (eleven) years of age. The prosecution also proved that there was corroboration by the evidence of PW2 and PW3; and even by the admission of the appellant himself. When the evidence adduced by the prosecution is considered together, the allegation against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. For all the reasons given above, I hereby resolve this issue against the appellant.