dismissal of his appeal on 8th January 2013 informs the instant appeal to this Court on fifteen grounds filed on 16th January 2013. At the hearing of the appeal, parties on identifying their respective briefs filed and exchanged earlier, adopted same as their arguments for and against the appeal. The four issues distilled in the appellant's brief settled by Nureni Jimoh Esq., read:"1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right on the conclusion regarding the rules of inconsistency, discrepancy and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix rightly accepted the written statement allegedly written by the accused (Exhibit A) before the police and hold that the evidence of PW1 was sufficiently corroborated in this case. (Grounds II - XI). 2. Whether the lower Court was right to hold that the prosecutrix has proved the case of rape against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (Grounds I, XII & XIV) 3. Whether the lower Court was right to hold that the duty to prove alibi is on the accused person. (Ground XIII) and 4. Whether there was no breach of fair hearing when the lower Court failed to pronounce on the appeal against sentence made by the trial Court against the accused. (Ground XV)." The similar but more concise and clearer issue formulated at page 5 of the respondents brief read:(1) Whether the inconsistency rule is applicable to the case of the appellant. (2) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.