Now to the evidence of DW1 as whether he had the knowledge of the fact the PW1 is over 18 years of age. At page 73, DW1 testified At the time I harboured her, she was not my student. She had passed out then. She was a young girl then, I did not ask her age before I had sex with her. I cannot believe she was 16 years when she was in SS2. From the foregoing it can be seen that there is nowhere that the Appellant denies that PW1 is under the age of 18 years. The further argument of the Appellant that no other students suffered the same inhumane treatment meted to the PW1 suggest that the action of the Appellant was indeed a cruel one and a maltreatment to a child as there was nothing placed before the Court to the contrary. The burden requisite for establishing the offence against the Appellant was satisfied. Evidence led during the course of the trial by the prosecution witnesses satisfies the burden of proof. The contention of the Respondent is that the issue of consent cannot avail the Appellant as envisaged in the case of Isa v. The Kano State (2016) LPELR 40011 SC Pg. 10-11. The fact of the case is that the Appellant raped a girl aged 8 years. The Appellant lured the prosecutrix with money to buy him pure water and upon bringing the pure water; the Appellant dragged her to an uncompleted building and raped her before she was rescued. At the conclusion of the trial, the Appellant was sentenced. The trial Court found the Appellant guilty as charged and convicted him accordingly to 10 years imprisonment. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, the Appellate Court