I have perused the issues formulated by both Counsel for determination of this Court and consider the two issues distilled by the learned Respondents Counsel more concise and apt. I shall consider this appeal on the Respondents two issues but shall recast issue No. 2 as follows: Whether having been discharged and acquitted of the charge of rape the Appellant was accorded fair hearing when the learned trial Judge invoked Sections 217 and 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code to convict him for the offence of act of gross indecency though not so charged. ISSUE NO. I On this issue which is whether on the totality of the evidence adduced, the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence of act of gross indecency against the Appellant, the contention of the learned Appellants Counsel is that the prosecution did not discharge its unshifting burden of proving conjunctively each of the 3 ingredients of the offence of gross indecency under Section 285 of the Penal Code as mandatorily required, calling in 5 aid the cases of AFOLALU VS THE STATE (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 538) 812, 832 B C and EBEINWE VS THE STATE (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 566) 413 AT 425 426 G B. It was submitted that the evidence of the Victim (PW6) who is a child of 5 years of age, on the 1st ingredient of the offence, that the Appellant put his hand in her private part and she felt pain and cried, requires corroboration by virtue of Section 209 (1) and (3) of the Evidence Act but same was not so corroborated by the evidence of PW3 heavily relied upon and whose evidence is that PW6 was sexually assaulted and raped. The evidence of PW3 which is mutually exclusive of and none complimentary to the evidence of PW6 and does not link the Appellant to the sexual assault or rape, learned Counsel argued, cannot corroborate the evidence of PW6, as neither the evidence of PW3 nor of PW6 can independently sustain the Appellants conviction. He also submitted that the evidence of what PW2, PW4 and PW5 on what PW6 told them, is inadmissible hearsay evidence.