then fell on her and had sexual intercourse with her. PW2 examined her and found some slippery substance believed to be sperms in her. She called in some neighbors and the accused was confronted and later arrested by the police. During investigations, the prosecutrix was examined and a medical report - exhibit “A” issued. In his defence the accused stated that on that fateful day, he closed from work at about 3 am and because it was too late he decided to stay the night at the bakery where he works. As he was washing his face the next morning, PW2 came to the bakery and confronted him asking him what he had done to the prosecutrix. He denied raping the prosecutrix or giving her bread. He was nevertheless arrested and charged. The law on rape requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubts (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 (MOMODOU JALLOW v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1960- 1993) GLR 39 and WOOLMINGTON V DPP (1953) A.C. 462). And the law is also settled that the prosecution may rely on either direct or circumstantial evidence or upon the confession of the accused person himself to establish these elements (AHMED v. THE NIGERIAN ARMY (2011)1 NWLR 89). There was no eye witness account of the alleged rape, thus eliminating all the prospects of any direct evidence in support of the indictment. The prosecution therefore relied heavily on circumstantial evidence in prove of the offence. Although I agree that circumstantial evidence is 2