the complainant, they had tendered her birth certificate as Exhibit 4 which is conclusive evidence that at the time of the alleged offence, the complainant was infact 16 years 11 months old. That it is therefore irrefutably conclusive that in July 2009 the complainant was infact under the age of 18 years. On the second issue whether the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant, it is the submission of the prosecutions that the complainant became pregnant after July 2009 and that the accused did not dispute that the child she consequently gave birth to was his own child. That it is also evident from Exhibits 1&2, the voluntary and cautionary statements of the accused, that he confessed to having carnal knowledge of the complainant and that as a confessional statement, it is compelling evidence. Counsel submitted that the resultant pregnancy was complete proof that the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant and referred the court to R.V. Marsden (1891) 2 Q B at 149, a decision up held in Iko v. State (2003) 3 ACLR 49 at 73. These authorities were how ever discountenanced by the court as they were not provided. On the third issue whether the accused had reasonable cause to believe that the complainant was 18 years and above. It is the submission of the prosecution that the accused was a teacher at the very village in which the complainant resided and went to school, and he was aware at all times that she was a grade 9 student. That it was therefore reasonably expected and apparent that she would have been under the age of 18 years. Counsel urged that the facts of this case speak for themselves. That the accused was not the teacher of the complainant and therefore no academic reasons for the complainant being at the accused house could be given. In their further submissions, the prosecutions submitted that the case of the defence through out this trial had been inconsistent. That their line of defence had shifted from the issue of consent to describing the features of the complainant as being sufficient proof that she was 18 years and above. Counsel submitted that the birth certificate completely refuted that defence. Counsel finally submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of the evidence they had submitted and that the only conclusion to be drawn is that the accused had committed the offence for which he is being charged. Having listened to the submissions from both sides and the issues raised therein, I totally agree that in a criminal matter the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. See: Igabele v. The State 25 NSCQR 321 at 350; Gambo Musa v. The State 29 NSCQR 358 at 392-393; R v. Oledima (1940) 6 WACA (pt 202) Owen v. Isa (1961) 2 SCNLR 347. In determing this case, I will adopt the issues raised by the prosecutions which I believe are almost similar to those raised by the defence and can