hold as fact. I am therefore satisfied that the prosecution has established the second element beyond reasonable doubt. The third element is whether the sexual encounter was consensual or not. It is the evidence of the prosecutrix that the accused was her boy friend, and that she refused to tell her mother of the incident until she drank „blue washing powder‟ which aggravated her abdominal pains. She admitted under cross examination that she would not have revealed same to her mother but for the complications which arose after she drank the „blue washing powder‟. She further admitted having lied to the police as a way of protecting the accused. Apart from the „minor lacerations‟ there were no other injuries to suggest that the sexual intercourse was accompanied by the kind of violence suggested by the prosecutrix in her testimony before me (see POSU v. THE STATE (2011) LPELR-SC. 134/2010). Rather, the defensive and protective attitude of the prosecutrix towards the accused is poles apart with that of a victim of unwanted sex who in most cases would immediately want to see their aggressors punished. This protective attitude is indicative and reflective of the fact that the prosecutrix had something to hide about the sexual encounter. From the circumstances of this case it seems obvious to me that, what the prosecutrix was hiding is the fact that she consented to the sexual intercourse with the accused. I watched the prosecutrix carefully and she did not appear to me to be an innocent lad. I am convinced by the peculiar facts of this case that the sexual intercourse was consensual and this I shall hold as a fact. The prosecution therefore 7