to have established the offence of rape against the appellant. The decision interalia, in Ogunbayo v. State (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt 365) 408, Okeyamor v State (2005) 1 NCC 499 and Jegede v. The State (supra), submits learned respondents counsel, entitle this Court to interfere with the perverse findings of the two Courts below. Commending the authorities to the Court, learned counsel urges that the Court resolves the issue in appellants favour and allow the appeal. In response, learned counsel to the respondent refers to the dicta of Oputa JSC in Mufutau Bakare V. State (1987) 1 NSCC 267 at 272 and Section 282(1) of the Penal Code which defines the offence of rape and submits that all the ingredients of the offence have been proved by the prosecution in the case at hand. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated. The testimony of PW2 and exhibits A and C, on the authority of Idris Rabiu V. State (2005) 1 NCC 578, provide the statutory corroboration necessary in establishing appellant's guilt under Section 283 of the Penal Code. Indeed, exhibit A, the confessional statement of the appellant, notwithstanding appellant's plea of non est factum, does ground the appellant's conviction. The most important requirement of the law, admissibility of the document, having been met, nothing disentitles the two Courts from relying on the statement to found his guilt. The decisions in Edhigere v. State (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt 464) 1 and Emmanuel Nwanyebonyi V. State (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt 343) 138 leaned respondent's counsel submits, clearly supports their position on the corroboration of the testimonies of PW2 and exhibit A provide. Further relying onSolola v. State (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt 269) 1751, which counsel distinguished from Olalekan v. State, (supra) it is submitted that appellant's guilt has manifestly been established.