alphabet. He claimed that he could not read or write in the English Language Exhibit A was recorded. It was not suggested that the PW.3 who recorded the statement in Exhibit A, did not understand the language of the Appellant. The statement was tendered and admitted without any objection, albeit feeble. When the PW.3 testified he was also not discredited. The plea of Exhibit A being non est factum was just a mere lame afterthought. It was rejected out rightly and correctly in my view. I cannot fault the concurrent findings of fact that the Appellant raped the PW1, whose evidence was abundantly corroborated to warrant the conviction of the Appellant for rape. The appeal lacking in substance is hereby dismissed. The decision of the lower Court affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant is hereby affirmed. SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.: My lord, Musa Dattijo Muhammad, JSC availed me with a copy of the Judgment just delivered, for which I am in complete agreement with. I will add a few words of my own in total support. The essential and most important ingredient of the offence of rape is penetration and unless penetration is proved, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. See Edet Okon vs. The State (2001) 7 SCNJ 391. Penetration however slight sufficient and it is not necessary to prove any injury or the rupture of the hymen to constitute the crime of rape. See also Okoyomon VS. The State (1972) 1 NWLR 292, JOS N. A Police VS. Allah NA GANI(1968) NMCR 8; Igbine VS. The State (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 519) 101.