she revealed to anyone that he was the person who did that to her, proved the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. On circumstantial evidence, it was submitted that the evidence of DW4, DW2 and the contents of Exhibit B show that the Appellant who was with the Victim had the opportunity to commit the offence. That the evidence of DW4, the Head Teacher of the School, shows that most of the staff saw the Victim on that day after closure of their classes 11 playing on the Appellants motor-cycle and Appellant took her on the motor-cycle away from the school around 1:30pm. DW2 as well as the Appellant in Exhibit B also confirmed that the Appellant who used to drop the Victim at school and back, also brought her back on his motor-cycle that 11/06/2013 urging us to hold that the Appellant committed the act. Another circumstantial evidence Counsel argued is that the Appellant pleaded with the Victims father (PW2) to leave the issue to God and subsequently the Appellants Mother and Mother in law also made the same plea. All these pieces of un-contradicted and unchallenged evidence points unequivocally and irresistibly at the Appellant and that the learned trial Judge was right in relying on same to convict the Appellant citing in support the cases of KABELE VS THE STATE (2008) 2 SCNJ 124, 137 ratio 30; NWAEZE VS THE STATE (1996) 2 SCNJ 42 and urging us to hold that the prosecution proved all the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant and resolve the issue in favour of the Respondent. Now, the Appellant was charged with the offence of rape punishable under 12