On the second issue, counsel merely reargued the issue of corroboration citing different authorities. I do not find it convenient and necessary to reproduce such arguments here. To succeed under Section 121 of the Criminal Code, the prosecution must establish that the accused had unlawful carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix without her consent. This requires the prosecution to prove the following beyond reasonable doubts: (a) That there was unlawful carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix. (b) That the prosecutrix did not give her consent. (c) That the accused is the man who did the act. With regards to whether there was unlawful carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix, I must say straight away that the evidence on record suggests that there was sexual intercourse between the accused and the PW2. The prosecutrix testified how the accused tied up her mouth before ravishing her. In exhibit “A”, the accused does not deny the act, but rather states that it was the prosecutrix who held him by her hand and pulled her to the bed paving the way the act. I have observed that exhibit “A” was tendered and admitted in evidence without any objection from the defence. The cautionary statement therefore becomes part of the case for the prosecution and I am bound to consider its probative value (NWACHUKU v. THE STATE (2007) 31 NSCQR 312-359). Admission of an offence or any part thereof by an accused to other persons may amount to sufficient corroboration in law (IKO v. THE STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732). The 4