the prosecutrix (DE1) points to Pap Ceesay and not the accused as the person who sexually assaulted her. The law is settled that once cautionary and voluntary statements have been admitted by the court they automatically form part and parcel of the prosecution. See NWACHUKU v THE STATE (2007) 31 NSCQR 312-359 and EDET OFFIONG EKPE v THE STATE (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 368), 273. Thus exhibits “A-A1” in which the accused denied the allegation forms an integral part of the case relied upon by the prosecution. The cumulative effect of all these is that the prosecution is relying on contradictory evidence to prove its case. I should have at this stage dismissed this case for the contradictions inherent in the prosecution‟s case but also for the lack of corroborative evidence in support of the identification of the accused as the person who sexually assaulted the prosecutrix. However, the accused admitted in exhibit “A” that he was with the prosecutrix at the residence of Pap Ceesay that very night. I believe this piece of evidence to be true as it corroborates the evidence of the prosecutrix and in doing so I hold that the prosecutrix was together with the accused that night and this I shall hold as a fact. It is the evidence of the accused that when they left Pap Ceesay‟s house, they took the prosecutrix right up to the junction of her house where she was allowed to go home. The circumstances are such that I can safely infer that if there was any sexual encounter with the prosecutrix that night, as there was, it is most likely to be the act of the accused and this I shall again 6