Further arguing the issue, learned respondent's counsel submits that PW1, inspite of her tender age, remained resolute in her evidence. The seeming confusion in her evidence under cross exanimation, it is argued, was put aright on reexamination. Relying on the cases of Eke V. State (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt 1235) 589 and Jerry Ikueopenikan v. The State (2011) NWLR (Pt. 1221) 449, learned counsel submits that there is nothing contradictory either inter or intra the evidence of the three witnesses to disentitle any Court to rely on this evidence. Even if there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, it is submitted, they are not material to warrant allowing the appeal because of the contradictions. Beyond the testimony of PW1 there is exhibit A, appellant's statement and exhibits B and C, it is further submitted, both Courts rightly relied on to convict the appellant. Appellant's contention under the 1st issue being unavailing, learned respondent's counsel submits, should be discountenanced. On the 2nd issue, learned appellant's counsel refers to the decision of this Court in Posu v. The State (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt 565) 234 at 250 and contends that in the instant case the respondent has not proved the offence of rape contrary to Section 283 of the Penal Code. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below, it is submitted, cannot be sustained. Relying further on Afolalu v. State (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt 528) 812 at 828 and The State v. Danjuma (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 506) 512, learned counsel submits that the respondent whose burden it is to prove all the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt has not discharged the burden. In particular, it is argued, the respondent who has not established the fact of penetration of appellant's penis into PW1's vagina cannot, in law, be held