will not interfere with the findings of the trial Court with clearly established misapplication of the law on facts which were misconstrued by the trial Court. There is no miscarriage of justice or any violation at all as the Appellant did not raise any issue to that effect. (See Igbi v. State (2000) 3 NWLR Pg. 192, on the burden and standard of proof on the prosecution in a trial case). The burden of proofing the guilt of an accused rests on the prosecution. The standard of proof required of the prosecution to discharge that burden has been settled as proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has been proved by the prosecution that there was a case of having unlawful sexual intercourse by both parade and documentary exhibits too. The evidence of DW2 and DW3 did not exonerate the Appellant from the crime only to the extent that they are neigbhours and co-tenants and teachers respectively. On the other hand the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 are compelling enough to warrant the conviction of the Appellant as rightly done by the trial Court. I find no good reason to interfere with the decision of the learned trial Court. The conviction and sentence of the Appellant is hereby affirmed. HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.:I had the privilege of reading in advance a draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Monica B. DongbanMensem, JCA.