day after the alleged rape SIRAJO JALLOW presented with a partial breaking of the hymen. Although the examining Doctor said she could not authoritatively confirm rape, she however did not rule out that possibility. The important and essential ingredient of the offence of rape is penetration. Sexual intercourse is deemed complete upon proof of penetration of the penis into the vagina. The slightest penetration will be sufficient to constitute the act of sexual intercourse. Thus, where penetration is proved but not of such a depth as to injure the hymen, it will be sufficient to constitute the crime of rape. Proof of full rupture of the hymen is unnecessary to establish the offence of rape (OGUNBAYO v. THE STATE (2007) 8 NWLR 157). The partial breaking of the hymen is sufficient evidence supporting the fact of sexual assault. I therefore find as a fact that the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted. I believe the evidence of PW4, which has to a large extent been corroborated by exhibit C. The sworn evidence of the accused did not persuade me at all. Rather, his statement in exhibit C tallies with the other pieces of evidence in this matter. In exhibit C, the accused states how he accidentally fell on the prosecutrix. That sounds like a ferrytale to me. I believe that PW4 met the accused on the prosecutrix and that the injury on the hymen of the prosecutrix was caused by that act of the accused. This sequence of events establishes a clean nexus between the accused and the act. I am therefore satisfied that the accused had unlawful sexual intercourse with FATOU TOURAY and this I shall hold as a 4