physically unstable. She is a pupil at the St John School for the Deaf and Dumb. She could not lead any concrete evidence even with the aid of her teacher and mother. As far as the first element of the offence is concerned the law is that where there was no eye witness account of the alleged sexual offence, the Courts can rely on circumstantial evidence to resolve the issue. Such evidence could include amongst others, medical evidence of the examination of the prosecutrix confirming the allegation of recent forcible coitus (OGUNBAYO v. THE STATE (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035). It is clear from the Medical Report - exhibit “B” and the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 that the prosecutrix was sexually manhandled. She was seen with her inner pants in hand with blood stains all over her body. There was therefore sufficient corroboration in support of the alleged sexual intercourse; as such the provisions of section 180(2) of the Evidence Act have been satisfactorily complied with. The conclusion I reach from these facts is that the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted and this I shall hold as a fact. I therefore resolve the first element in favour of the prosecution. The undisputed age of the prosecutrix was put at 10 years only. At this age and with her physical and mental condition; the prosecutrix could not have consented to that particular sexual activity. This is the conclusion I must reach on this issue and in doing so I hold that the prosecution has proved the first two elements of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubts and this I shall again hold as a fact. 4