The argument for the Appellant is that the residue of the particulars of rape after deleting the unproved particulars of penetration and sexual intercourse do not constitute or form the particulars of the offence of gross indecency. Going by the combined reading of Sections 216, 217 and 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I disagree with the learned Counsels submission. This is because the offence of rape is only an aggravated offence of gross indecency which includes sexual assault. It is the none proof of penetration of the Penis in the Vagina that reduced the offence to gross indecency, which is an offence in the class of sexual assault. Both the aggravated offence of rape and the reduced or 37 lesser offence of gross indecency share the ingredient of sexual assault or unlawful tempering with female private part, and in the presence of the components of absence of consent or will, constitutes either the aggravated offence of rape or the reduced or lesser offence of indecent assault otherwise known as gross indecency. It thus follows that the residue of the particulars of rape after deleting the particulars of penetration in rape, constitutes a lesser offence of gross indecency and sufficiently satisfies the attempted guide of what constitutes a lesser offence as set out in TORHAMBA VS POLICE (Supra) or at least a reduced offence contemplated in Section 218 (2) of the same Criminal Procedure Code. In his commentary or annotation to Section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Northern States of Nigeria 2nd Edition applicable in Kano State, the great author Jerry Richard Jones in his illustration of what constitutes a lesser offence under the said Section, gave 3 examples, one of which is that: (c) A. is charged with rape and it is proved in evidence that he committed an act of gross indecency. A may be convicted of committing an act 38 of gross indecency although he was not charged with that offence.