In proof of penetration, the law is trite as submitted by respondent's counsel that partial or incomplete penetration is sufficient proof of the offence of rape and authorities both at Common Law and also under our statutes are in unison on this point. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant therefore, all, support the case of the Respondent on the foregoing principle as enunciated. A prominent authority in support is the case of Ogunbayo V. State (supra) where this Court said thus at pages 182 182:- "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. Emission is not a necessary requirement. Any or even the slightest penetration will be sufficient to constitute the act of 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. Therefore, proof of the rupture of hymen is unnecessary to establish the offence of rape." In the instant appeal, the evidence of Pw1 (the prosecutrix), PW2, Pw5 and Exhibit 'A' are very relevant. PW1 for instance said thus in her evidence:"He held my hand and dragged me to an uncompleted building. He removed my wrapper and also removed my pant. He also removed his trouser and he put his penis into my vagina. I then shouted." Pw2 also gave evidence and confirmed the year of incident as stated by Pw1. The witness in his statement in chief said."I went and saw the accused person and the girl (Pw1). The trouser of the accused was at the knee level and was trying to dress up, while the girl had her pant down. As at the time I met them they were