in convicting and sentencing the Appellant as it did that the learned trial judge was right to have relied on Exhibit B, C and D which were confessional statement made by the Appellant. That the Prosecution proved the offence of having Sexual Intercourse with a child against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence of PW1 having being corroborated by Exhibits A and E. The Respondent points to the evidence of the PW1, PW2, PW3 and Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F and G which are uncontroverted as satisfying the burden placed on the Prosecution. Portions of the testimony PW1 were quoted to buttress the submission of the Respondent. Several cases were also cited, among which are: NAYAN UPAHAR & ANOR VS. THE STATE (2003) 6 NWLR (PT. 816) 230; OGUNBAYO VS. THE STATE (2007) 1 NWLR (PT. 1035) 157 @ 179; BONNIFACE ADONIKE VS. THE STATE (2015) LPELR-24281 (SC); ISA VS. THE STATE (2016) LPELR-40011 (SC) pg 10-11; NDIDI VS. STATE (2007) 13 NWLR (PT 1052) 633 (page 4-7). It is further the submission of the Respondents that the argument of the Appellant to the effect that he had the consent of a child to have sexual intercourse with her is a defence not known to law. Refers to Section 32 (2) of the Child Rights Law 2006. On the complaint of an excessive sentence, the Respondent argues that the punishment is life imprisonment but the learned trial Court applied discretion in the sentence of 10 years only. The Appellant should therefore not be heard to complaint about the sentence.