PW1 was at least eighteen years. Her willingness, readiness and determination not to get pregnant is an unmistakable sign of adulthood on the part of PW1. The Appellant also raised issues with the sentence of 10 years and submit that the sentence of 10 years imprisonment with hard labour is too severe in the circumstances of this case particularly as the Appellant reasonably believed that PW1 was over eighteen years old. That both Appellant and PW1 developed this relationship with a joint intention that they would get married to each other. That it is also in evidence that the Appellant was never cruel or hurtful to PW1. That the Court should uphold the Appellants arguments. That therefore urge this Honourable Court to hold that the Appellant is not guilty of the offence presently brought against him, discharge and acquit him accordingly. The Appellant maintains that the Prosecution failed to establish that the Appellant acted with bad intention and knowing that the Prosecutrix is a child under the age of 18 years and therefore incapable of giving consent to a sexual relationship that the burden always lies with the Prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. That the Prosecution failed to establish the vital ingredients of the offence including the identity of the Appellant. Conversely, the Respondent maintains that the Prosecution proved the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial Court was right