the accused on the one count charge pursuant to Section 31(2) of the Child Right Act as the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. I have carefully considered the processes filed, evidence of witnesses and submission of learned counsel on both sides, I am in one with the prosecution’s counsel that the sole issue for determination is whether the prosecution has proved his case as charged beyond reasonable doubt against the accused person. It is worthy of note that both the prosecution and the defence are in one that for the accused person to be convicted of the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child pursuant to Section 31(1) and (2) of the Child Right Act LFN, the prosecution need to establish the following ingredients: (a) That the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. (b) That the act of sexual intercourse was done without her consent or that the consent was obtained by fraud, force, threat, intimidation, deceit or impersonation. (c) That the accused had the men’s rea, the intention to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent or that the accused acted recklessly not caring whether the prosecutrix consented or not. (d) That there was penetration. The above was established in the case of POSU v STATE (Supra). It is an elementary principle of law that it is not the duty of an accused to prove his innocence. The prosecution must establish 20