Appellant, who was ably represented by Counsel at the Court below, can not now raise any issue that an interpreter was not provided for him, or that the charge was not explained to him, from English language to Hausa. The law is, where accused person is defended by a Counsel at a trial, it is the duty of such Counsel to object to any wrong procedure adopted at the trial, or to the tendering of any document, including a purported confessional statement of the accused person. Where he fails to play his role and takes part in the trial to conclusion, he cannot, thereafter, raise question on the alleged wrong procedure or admission of document. See the case of DURWODE VS. STATE (2000) NSEQR 33; OKOROH v. THE STATE (1990) NWLR (Pt. 125) 136; OJI v. FRN (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 668) 920 at 938. In that case of OJI V. FRN (supra), the Appellant who complained, on appeal, that the charge was not read and interpreted to him in his local language (Uhrobo), had pleaded guilty to the charge after the same was read and explained to him. His Counsel took part in the proceeding and even addressed the Court on the alloculus before Appellant was sentenced. Of course, the court saw that the complaint was an after thought and that since the court was satisfied with the arraignment, it was okay. It held: "The law is well defined and settled on what the trial court should do ... when it is satisfied that the charge has been read to the accused person, and he appears to understand same, perfectly and pleads ... Of course it is the duty of the trial court to satisfy itself that the appellant understands the charge read and explained to him, perfectly." See YUSUF V. STATE (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 564) 160; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 853 ratio 4. It must also be added that the complaint that Appellant in this appeal did not understand the charge or proceedings, having not been raised at the trial Court, ceases to be a credible issue for consideration, oh appeal, as the same is a stranger to the judgment appealed against, having not been considered or contemplated in the judgment. Of course, Appellant is not permitted to raise any issue on appeal which did not arise from or predicate on the judgment appealed against. See the case of OJI vs. FRN (supra) page 938; OSSAI vs. FRN (2013) 13 WRN 87; SHELTIMA V. GONI (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. L297) 413 at 440. On the establishment of proof, required to lie conviction for rape, I think care must be taken to avoid over dramatizing the evidence, considering the sensitivity and trauma associated with how to relay such evidence by the victim of such attack. In the first place, it requires a lot of courage for a victim of rape to come out to report the attack to the Police, and to accept to pursue the prosecution of the offence against his/her person, which is also an offence against the State.